I'm back

[John Harshman]

I've returned after a two-week vacation. Did anything noteworthy happen
while I was gone?

[*Hemidactylus*]

John Harshman <jhar...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> I've returned after a two-week vacation. Did anything noteworthy happen
> while I was gone?
>

You were absent? Jonathan solved the nagging complexity problem through
salacious pornographic voyeurism. Peter has added Martin to his shit-list
(we internet hellions and overdogs had an official induction
ceremony...forgot to email you the invite). Pags is still doing what he
excels at whatever that happens to be. I think DrDr is still posting
futilely.

[RonO]

On 4/22/2018 1:02 PM, John Harshman wrote:
> I've returned after a two-week vacation. Did anything noteworthy happen
> while I was gone?
>

Pags had his psychotic break before you left and they seem to have upped
his meds since. All the IDiots are laying low or lying low to themselves
trying to run in denial of the reality that they find themselves in.

It is sort of sad that the IDiots can't seem to face what has been
bestowed upon them by the ID perps. You'd think that they would be
wallowing in the greatness of the "best" that IDiocy has to offer, but
Pag's and Dean's pathetic efforts have been all that they can muster.
For some reason Dean's misdirection thread about the Dover decision that
he started when he realized how bogus IDiocy has been all these years is
still active. Beats me what they are still discussing in it.

Ron Okimoto

[Andre G. Isaak]

In article <6LidnaI1J7qiU0HH...@giganews.com>,

John Harshman <jhar...@pacbell.net> wrote:

> I've returned after a two-week vacation. Did anything noteworthy happen
> while I was gone?

Ray published his book and has been nominated for a pulitzer.

Jonathan used complexity theory to solve every single problem in the
middle east and has been nominated for the nobel peace prize.

Pagano has disproven general relativity and has been nominated for the
nobel prize in physics.

Kleinkleinman has finally proven that birds do not actually exist, for
which he was awarded a pair of binoculars by the National Audubon
Society.

The Donald claimed that there was no collusion.

Kellyanne Conway said something that was true.

And Spock-with-a-Beard from "Mirror Mirror" has usurped the U.S.
presidency.

Andre

--
To email remove 'invalid' & replace 'gm' with well known Google mail service.

[gdgu...@gmail.com]

Well for one thing the Earth didn't move.

[John Harshman]

On 4/22/18 1:00 PM, gdgu...@gmail.com wrote:
> Well for one thing the Earth didn't move.
>

I understand that's because there is no net acceleration force velocity
acting upon it. Right?

[Paul J Gans]

John Harshman <jhar...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>I've returned after a two-week vacation. Did anything noteworthy happen
>while I was gone?

On talk.origins?

--
--- Paul J. Gans

[Paul J Gans]

In all the years I've been here I've always wondered WHY they care
so much. They have their beliefs. WHY do they want science to
confirm them?

A quick definition of science is that it is an attempt to explain
the observed phenomena of the world (i.e. universe) WITHOUT resorting
to supernatural explanations.

So why oh why do they want to add the supernatural to science?

Many scientists are religious. They have no problem keeping
religion and science separate.

[jonathan]

On 4/22/2018 2:35 PM, Andre G. Isaak wrote:
> In article <6LidnaI1J7qiU0HH...@giganews.com>,
> John Harshman <jhar...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
>> I've returned after a two-week vacation. Did anything noteworthy happen
>> while I was gone?
>
> Ray published his book and has been nominated for a pulitzer.
>
> Jonathan used complexity theory to solve every single problem in the
> middle east and has been nominated for the nobel peace prize.
>

Still trying to drag you Dark Agers into this
century. You've heard of Carl Woese, I hope?

Until you learn the language of complexity
which sadly is entirely absent from this ng
you'll continue to be mired in the Dark Ages
of scientific thought.


COMPLEXITY THEORY TAKES EVOLUTION TO ANOTHER LEVEL

One hundred and ninety-nine years after Charles Darwin
was born, and 149 years after he published On the
Origin of Species, some scientists say that the
theory of evolution is due for a revision.

One interviewee was Carl Woese, a titan of 20th
century microbiology, who with colleague George
Fox reorganized the organismal kingdom from five
branches to three.

Woese's experience with bacteria led him to look for an
evolutionary framework larger than that provided by Darwin
and his intellectual descendants. Bacteria – which may
account for up to half of Earth's biomass – swap genes
without reproducing; with millions residing in a teaspoon
of seawater, Woese sees them in terms of networked
communities rather than individual cells, and interprets
their evolutionary history as driven by the non-linear
self-organization that's now being studied at all
biological scales.

https://www.wired.com/2008/02/complexity-theo/

> Pagano has disproven general relativity and has been nominated for the
> nobel prize in physics.
>
> Kleinkleinman has finally proven that birds do not actually exist, for
> which he was awarded a pair of binoculars by the National Audubon
> Society.
>
> The Donald claimed that there was no collusion.
>





On 4/22/2018 2:35 PM, Andre G. Isaak wrote:
> In article <6LidnaI1J7qiU0HH...@giganews.com>,
> John Harshman <jhar...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
>> I've returned after a two-week vacation. Did anything noteworthy happen
>> while I was gone?
>
> Ray published his book and has been nominated for a pulitzer.
>
> Jonathan used complexity theory to solve every single problem in the
> middle east and has been nominated for the nobel peace prize.
>
> Pagano has disproven general relativity and has been nominated for the
> nobel prize in physics.
>
> Kleinkleinman has finally proven that birds do not actually exist, for
> which he was awarded a pair of binoculars by the National Audubon
> Society.
>
> The Donald claimed that there was no collusion.
>

This morning Trump proved he's gone completely
mental, as if he had tourette syndrome or worse
when he tweeted this statement, nothing else just
this one sentence...


Donald J. Trump
‏Verified account
@realDonaldTrump


A complete Witch Hunt!

10:23 AM - 22 Apr 2018
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/988106076028653568



The other day Trump announced North Korea
agreed to give up their nukes in exchange
for a bag of chips....



Donald J. Trump
‏Verified account
@realDonaldTrump


Sleepy Eyes Chuck Todd of Fake News NBC just stated
that we have given up so much in our negotiations with
North Korea, and they have given up nothing. Wow,
we haven’t given up anything & they have agreed to
denuclearization (so great for World), site closure,
& no more testing!
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/988037292932653056


Minutes later, as if to recognize the stupidity
of the above statement he tweeted...



Donald J. Trump
‏Verified account
@realDonaldTrump

.....We are a long way from conclusion on North Korea, maybe
things will work out, and maybe they won’t - only time
will tell....But the work I am doing now should have
been done a long time ago!

> Kellyanne Conway said something that was true.
>

Yesterday Trump said this below.


Donald J. Trump
‏Verified account
@realDonaldTrump

"They use non-existent “sources” and a drunk/drugged up loser
who hates Michael, a fine person with a wonderful family."


Kellyanne Conway was asked this morning who this 'loser' is
and she said she has no idea. He's delusional.


And then yesterday he said he was going to Pardon
Jack Johnson 70 years after his death.



Donald J. Trump
‏Verified account
@realDonaldTrump

Sylvester Stallone called me with the story of heavyweight
boxing champion Jack Johnson. His trials and tribulations
were great, his life complex and controversial. Others
have looked at this over the years, most thought it would
be done, but yes, I am considering a Full Pardon!
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/987768453338673152




Rumors are he's going to pardon Judas, Brutus and
Benedict Arnold soon as a whisper to Michael Cohen
not to rat him out. But if he does turn on him
Trump has already predicted the future and announced
anything the 'fine person' Cohen says will be a lie.



Donald J. Trump
‏Verified account
@realDonaldTrump

"Michael is a businessman for his own account/lawyer who
I have always liked & respected. Most people will flip
if the Government lets them out of trouble, even if
it means lying or making up stories. Sorry, I don’t
see Michael doing that despite the horrible Witch Hunt
and the dishonest media!"




Trump is losing it.

[jonathan]

On 4/22/2018 5:23 PM, Paul J Gans wrote:
> RonO <roki...@cox.net> wrote:
>> On 4/22/2018 1:02 PM, John Harshman wrote:
>>> I've returned after a two-week vacation. Did anything noteworthy happen
>>> while I was gone?
>>>
>
>> Pags had his psychotic break before you left and they seem to have upped
>> his meds since. All the IDiots are laying low or lying low to themselves
>> trying to run in denial of the reality that they find themselves in.
>
>> It is sort of sad that the IDiots can't seem to face what has been
>> bestowed upon them by the ID perps. You'd think that they would be
>> wallowing in the greatness of the "best" that IDiocy has to offer, but
>> Pag's and Dean's pathetic efforts have been all that they can muster.
>> For some reason Dean's misdirection thread about the Dover decision that
>> he started when he realized how bogus IDiocy has been all these years is
>> still active. Beats me what they are still discussing in it.
>
>> Ron Okimoto


>
> In all the years I've been here I've always wondered WHY they care
> so much. They have their beliefs. WHY do they want science to
> confirm them?
>
> A quick definition of science is that it is an attempt to explain
> the observed phenomena of the world (i.e. universe)

Well that attempt has failed to answer the questions
most want answered.

Creation for instance, when will science answer that?

Another reason is science utterly fails to admit
there are many things it can't answer, and attempts
to continue to push the FRAUD that it's only a
matter or time, a breakthrough or bigger computer
before it will have all the answers. That's a
belief based only in faith, not rational thought
showing science to be also internally inconsistent.

As for the success of science to date, give the
'equations' or solution to a few simple questions.


What will be the shape of that cloud overhead in
three seconds?

What's the equation to make someone smile?

What is an emotion, and how do we model and predict them?

What will happen tomorrow?

What is the source of war, and show your work?

How do we build a better society or future?

What is the meaning of life?

What is love?

HOW WAS LIFE CREATED?



So tell me what can science do that has
anything to do with questions of meaning
or our future???

> WITHOUT resorting
> to supernatural explanations.
>

That statement shows a lack of understanding of
mainstream religious philosophy. For instance
the attributes of God as stated by religious
philosophy is to ascribe the intrinsic properties
of the observed universe to God, only in their
ideal form.

So the notion of God is based on observation
of the universe, not any supernatural 'visions'.

> So why oh why do they want to add the supernatural to science?
>
> Many scientists are religious. They have no problem keeping
> religion and science separate.
>

.....if they know what's good for their careers.

Today's version of the Holy Inquisition is no
farther than the nearest tenure committee
or grant application.



Jonathan


"My period had come for Prayer
No other Art -- would do
My Tactics missed a rudiment
Creator -- Was it you?

God grows above -- so those who pray
Horizons -- must ascend
And so I stepped upon the North
To see this Curious Friend

His House was not -- no sign had He
By Chimney -- nor by Door
Could I infer his Residence
Vast Prairies of Air

Unbroken by a Settler
Were all that I could see
Infinitude -- Had'st Thou no Face
That I might look on Thee?

The Silence condescended
Creation stopped -- for Me
But awed beyond my errand
I worshipped -- did not "pray"




s



--


--

[*Hemidactylus*]

jonathan <WriteI...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
[snip]

>
> And then yesterday he said he was going to Pardon
> Jack Johnson 70 years after his death.
>
>
>
> Donald J. Trump
> ‏Verified account
> @realDonaldTrump
>
> Sylvester Stallone called me with the story of heavyweight
> boxing champion Jack Johnson. His trials and tribulations
> were great, his life complex and controversial. Others
> have looked at this over the years, most thought it would
> be done, but yes, I am considering a Full Pardon!
> https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/987768453338673152
>
>
>
>
> Rumors are he's going to pardon Judas, Brutus and
> Benedict Arnold soon as a whisper to Michael Cohen
> not to rat him out. But if he does turn on him
> Trump has already predicted the future and announced
> anything the 'fine person' Cohen says will be a lie.
>

Does Jack Johnson deserve comparison to those notorious villains of
history? Johnson had a thing for white women, some were of so-called ill
repute, but his real crime was being black. And a bad ass boxer.

http://www.pbs.org/unforgivableblackness/knockout/pardon.html

Slick Willie Clinton pardoned his frickin brother for nose candy and had a
notorious affair with an intern. McCain and Reid have supported a pardon
for Johnson. Obama didn’t do it? Why? Maybe it would dignify the charges
and racist motivation. Maybe Johnson’s notorious “record” should stand as
testament to our racist past. Or maybe The Donald could do at least one
positive thing with his power even if to deflect attention from his own
issues.

This Jack Johnson was *bold* for a black man of his era:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Johnson_(boxer)

“Once, when he was pulled over for a $50 speeding ticket, he gave the
officer a $100 bill; when the officer protested that he couldn't make
change for that much, Johnson told him to keep the change as he was going
to make his return trip at the same speed.”

Driving while black ain’t no picnic even now. One has to tip their fedora
to such defiant arrogance of yesteryear.

[Earle Jones]

*
Jonathan:

You have great questions.

Do you have any answers?

Thanks,

earle
*

[RonO]

Why lie about something this stupid? You can't get to where you want to
go by doing something as stupid as adding the supernatural to science
and expect to accomplish anything. IDiocy demonstrates that fact if it
demonstrated anything at all.

It is a stupid thing to lie about because the IDiot/creationists never
wanted to work on the answers that you are talking about. IDiocy was
just what the creationists had to do in order to try to keep doing what
they had tried to do with scientific creationism. They wanted to
pretend to be doing the science, so that their alternative might look
equivalent to the actual science. It obviously is not equivalent, and
never was any science worth calling science.

The ID scam was a political ploy to try to gain equivalence for
something that didn't measure up. If they really wanted some answers,
you know for a fact that they could have worked on the aspects of their
alternative that science could address, but they didn't want to know
those answers because they were not the answers that they wanted to
believe. Why are a lot of the ID perps old earth Biblical creationists?
Why couldn't they do the science to set YEC IDiots like Kenyon and
Nelson on the path to figuring out that the earth really is billions of
years old? Why didn't Behe and Denton spend their time demonstrating
that biological evolution is a fact of nature instead of lying to the
rubes about nonexistent ID science? They both admit that common descent
is a fact of nature and that humans had an ape like ancestor, so they
know that there is some IDiot science that could be done, but they
refuse to do it or discuss it.

You know that IDiocy was just a dishonest political ploy because you
know what it turned into. The switch scam that the ID perps give the
creationist rubes instead of the ID science is just an obfuscation scam
to keep people as ignorant as possible, there is no positive intent to
teach anyone anything useful. There isn't even an attempt to get the
answers that you claim that they want to get. It is all just denial
arguments.

If science cannot give you the answers that you want, why pretend to do
science to get those answers? The utter dishonesty of that effort is
one of the stupidest things about the creationist ID scam, and why ID
turned into a bait and switch scam that creationists are running on
themselves. The bait and switch is not run on the science side. It is
the creationist rubes that never get the ID science.

Science can't tell you the meaning of life in the way religious people
think of the meaning of life. Science can't tell you if some god
exists. There is no reason to pretend to do science in order to do
something that science can't do.

There is simply no reason left to lie about the stupid political nature
of the ID/creationist scam. The ID perps have admitted that they never
had any ID science. 5 of the 6 pieces of junk that they claim as the
"best" of IDiocy failed the scientific creationists as creation science
over 30 years ago. The 6th one failed the IDiots as science in Dover.
There is no point in pretending any longer.

This is the ID perps telling you what their original mission was when
they started the ID/creationist scam. This was up on the Discovery
Institute web site until the Wedge document fiasco happened and brought
attention to the political nature of the creationist ID scam.
http://web.archive.org/web/19980114111554/http://discovery.org/crsc/aboutcrsc.html

Ron Okimoto

[jonathan]

On 4/22/2018 7:16 PM, *Hemidactylus* wrote:
> jonathan <WriteI...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
> [snip]
>>
>> And then yesterday he said he was going to Pardon
>> Jack Johnson 70 years after his death.
>>
>>
>>
>> Donald J. Trump
>> ‏Verified account
>> @realDonaldTrump
>>
>> Sylvester Stallone called me with the story of heavyweight
>> boxing champion Jack Johnson. His trials and tribulations
>> were great, his life complex and controversial. Others
>> have looked at this over the years, most thought it would
>> be done, but yes, I am considering a Full Pardon!
>> https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/987768453338673152
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Rumors are he's going to pardon Judas, Brutus and
>> Benedict Arnold soon as a whisper to Michael Cohen
>> not to rat him out. But if he does turn on him
>> Trump has already predicted the future and announced
>> anything the 'fine person' Cohen says will be a lie.
>>
> Does Jack Johnson deserve comparison to those notorious villains of
> history? Johnson had a thing for white women, some were of so-called ill
> repute, but his real crime was being black. And a bad ass boxer.
>
> http://www.pbs.org/unforgivableblackness/knockout/pardon.html
>

Trump, out of the blue, pardoned Skooter Libby
for guess what? Lying to the FBI, perjury and
oh yes obstruction of justice. Gee.

Do you really think it was just a big fat coincidence
Trump issued that first pardon of Libby JUST TWO DAYS
after his personal lawyer Michael Cohen was raided??

Please tell me you don't think Trump did that
because of his concern for the wrongly convicted
of the past?

It was a clear message to Cohen, Manafort, Gates
and anyone else to come they can lie, perjure
and obstruct justice too to protect Trump and
he will pardon them, too.

Using his pardon power to keep people from
testifying against him is a clear abuse
of presidential power. This Jack Johnson
hooey is just an attempt to portray these
pardons as coming from the goodness of
his heart.

A child could see through it.

> Slick Willie Clinton pardoned his frickin brother for nose candy and had a
> notorious affair with an intern. McCain and Reid have supported a pardon
> for Johnson. Obama didn’t do it? Why? Maybe it would dignify the charges
> and racist motivation. Maybe Johnson’s notorious “record” should stand as
> testament to our racist past. Or maybe The Donald could do at least one
> positive thing with his power even if to deflect attention from his own
> issues.
>

None of them were attempts to prevent testimony
that could land Clinton in jail.

> This Jack Johnson was *bold* for a black man of his era:
>
> https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Johnson_(boxer)
>
> “Once, when he was pulled over for a $50 speeding ticket, he gave the
> officer a $100 bill; when the officer protested that he couldn't make
> change for that much, Johnson told him to keep the change as he was going
> to make his return trip at the same speed.”
>
> Driving while black ain’t no picnic even now. One has to tip their fedora
> to such defiant arrogance of yesteryear.
>

Yep I guess Jack Johnson is now Trump's 'African American'.


Trump at campaign rally: 'Look at my African-American!'
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-uH-FZCZl0Q






--

[jonathan]

> If science cannot give you the answers that you want, why pretend to do
> science to get those answers?

You'll see.

Let's put it this way, the butterfly effect and
the non-linear behavior inherent in evolving
systems shows that starting from initial
conditions to understand the whole, model
reality or predict the future, are futile.

So classical reductionist science merely
documents the events of the past in detail.

That's called a museum.

Since that kind of detailed historical information
as I said is useless for understanding nature or
predicting the future of evolving systems.

SO it's quite obvious a new method is needed.

And if reducing to parts is futile, logic clearly
indicates the only other available path must
be explored.

And that path is expanding to ever greater wholes
instead of reducing to ever smaller parts.

And that path is being explored AS WE TYPE
by the concept of emergence and in an
entirely scientific manner.

Reductionism isn't discarded however, it's
just that emergence, or the whole, comes first
in the new way, reductionism last.

The inverse of the classic scientific method.

The brick walls of reductionist science
are merely a frame of reference error
which complexity science is correcting.

I know old dogs can't learn new tricks, but
here's the text, if you don't read it you
don't have a leg to stand on.


http://old-classes.design4complexity.com/7701-S14/reading/critical-thinking/Types-and-Forms-of-Emergence.pdf













--

[Mark Isaak]

On 4/22/18 11:02 AM, John Harshman wrote:
> I've returned after a two-week vacation. Did anything noteworthy happen
> while I was gone?

Nope; the end of the world is scheduled for tomorrow, April 23.

--
Mark Isaak eciton (at) curioustaxonomy (dot) net
"Ignorance, allied with power, is the most ferocious enemy justice can
have." - James Baldwin

[jillery]

On Sun, 22 Apr 2018 18:20:42 -0400, jonathan <WriteI...@gmail.com>
wrote:

>What is love?


Baby don't hurt me
Don't hurt me
No more

--
I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.

Evelyn Beatrice Hall
Attributed to Voltaire

[RonO]

What is there to see? If science can't give you the answers that you
want, why pretend to do science to get those answers? Pretending isn't
going to get you anywhere. The supernatural can't help you.

Ron Okimoto

[gdgu...@gmail.com]

No it was the failure of the Sun and the Moon to move it. EPIC FAIL

[jonathan]

On 4/22/2018 9:39 PM, jillery wrote:
> On Sun, 22 Apr 2018 18:20:42 -0400, jonathan <WriteI...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> What is love?
>
>
> Baby don't hurt me
> Don't hurt me
> No more
>

Oh ye of little imagination and
zero abstract abilities. There is
no more important question than
that of love.

Love as in the union of opposites, or
the critical interaction of order and
disorder (chaos theory).

Or love as in the phase transition between
the opposites of static and chaotic attractors
(self-organization or evolution)

Love as in the union of opposites as in our
constitution (order) and Bill of Rights (freedom
or disorder)

Love as in the balance between the opposing
forces of gravity and cosmic expansion.

Or yes and even central to how genes are
passed on.

So you see, whether the origin of life, or
our societal future even the universe
itself and religious beliefs to boot
....love is the answer


Just as Emily said...



"Love - is anterior to Life
Posterior - to Death
Initial of Creation, and
The Exponent of Earth"


She was right.

[Andre G. Isaak]

In article <pbj9lp$opc$1...@dont-email.me>,

Mark Isaak <eciton@curiousta/xyz/xonomy.net> wrote:

> On 4/22/18 11:02 AM, John Harshman wrote:
> > I've returned after a two-week vacation. Did anything noteworthy happen
> > while I was gone?
>
> Nope; the end of the world is scheduled for tomorrow, April 23.

Fox News had a story on this.

Being Fox News, they opted to put this in the 'Science' section of their
website.

[jillery]

On Sun, 22 Apr 2018 22:12:33 -0400, jonathan <WriteI...@gmail.com>
wrote:

>On 4/22/2018 9:39 PM, jillery wrote:
>> On Sun, 22 Apr 2018 18:20:42 -0400, jonathan <WriteI...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> What is love?
>>
>>
>> Baby don't hurt me
>> Don't hurt me
>> No more
>>
>
>
>Oh ye of little imagination and
>zero abstract abilities. There is
>no more important question than
>that of love.

Not impressed with the Roxbury Guys?
Try this blast from the Wayback Machine.

What is love?

Five feet of heaven in a ponytail.
The cutest ponytail
that sways with a wiggle when she walks.

[Alan Kleinman MD PhD]

On Sunday, April 22, 2018 at 11:40:02 AM UTC-7, Andre G. Isaak wrote:
> In article <6LidnaI1J7qiU0HH...@giganews.com>,
> John Harshman <jhar...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
> > I've returned after a two-week vacation. Did anything noteworthy happen
> > while I was gone?
>
> Ray published his book and has been nominated for a pulitzer.
>
> Jonathan used complexity theory to solve every single problem in the
> middle east and has been nominated for the nobel peace prize.
>
> Pagano has disproven general relativity and has been nominated for the
> nobel prize in physics.
>
> Kleinkleinman has finally proven that birds do not actually exist, for
> which he was awarded a pair of binoculars by the National Audubon
> Society.

You should borrow my binoculars and take a closer look at the Lenski and Kishony experiments.

[Alan Kleinman MD PhD]

I think it is more futile for the reptiles grow feathers crowd to learn introductory probability theory.

[zencycle]

On Sunday, April 22, 2018 at 8:35:03 PM UTC-4, jonathan wrote:

>
> Let's put it this way, the butterfly effect and
> the non-linear behavior inherent in evolving
> systems shows that starting from initial
> conditions to understand the whole, model
> reality or predict the future, are futile.

And no one here, or in the world of legitimate science, ever said it was possible to start from a single point data point and predict emergent systems without knowing all the variables. This has been explained to you ad nauseam, but your egotistic faux intellectual drivel belies your complete inability actually learn anything.

> Since that kind of detailed historical information
> as I said is useless for understanding nature or
> predicting the future of evolving systems.

so understanding the past gives us no predictive insight at all - yeah, that's real fucking smart....

[erik simpson]

Fuck off, quack. Don't try to take over EVERY thread.

[Alan Kleinman MD PhD]

It appears I've gotten under the skin of the space case. Perhaps it is because he is a mathematically incompetent nitwit. Well, not perhaps. Tis a pity that space cases don't understand probability theory. It leads to lots of stupid and harmful speculations.

[Your Founding Fathers Erred]

On Sunday, April 22, 2018 at 2:05:02 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:

> I've returned after a two-week vacation. Did anything noteworthy happen
> while I was gone?

Yeah, Christopher Lee didn't die as we had hoped.....

[Bob Casanova]

On Sun, 22 Apr 2018 13:00:21 -0700 (PDT), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by gdgu...@gmail.com:

>Well for one thing the Earth didn't move.

Maybe not for you...
--

Bob C.

"The most exciting phrase to hear in science,
the one that heralds new discoveries, is not
'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'"

- Isaac Asimov

[Bob Casanova]

On Sun, 22 Apr 2018 11:02:39 -0700, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by John Harshman
<jhar...@pacbell.net>:

>I've returned after a two-week vacation. Did anything noteworthy happen
>while I was gone?

Does a post by The Good DrDr, showing all his calculations
and explaining where both mammals and feathers came from,
count?

Does an explanation by Bill/freon/???, showing how something
which is completely subjective can be a source of meaningful
(i.e., objective) discussion, count?

Well those didn't happen, so the answer is "No".

[Bob Casanova]

On Mon, 23 Apr 2018 05:49:33 -0700 (PDT), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by Alan Kleinman MD PhD
<klei...@sti.net>:

>On Sunday, April 22, 2018 at 11:20:02 AM UTC-7, *Hemidactylus* wrote:
>> John Harshman <jhar...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>> > I've returned after a two-week vacation. Did anything noteworthy happen
>> > while I was gone?
>> >
>> You were absent? Jonathan solved the nagging complexity problem through
>> salacious pornographic voyeurism. Peter has added Martin to his shit-list
>> (we internet hellions and overdogs had an official induction
>> ceremony...forgot to email you the invite). Pags is still doing what he
>> excels at whatever that happens to be. I think DrDr is still posting
>> futilely.

>I think

That has yet to be demonstrated.

[Bob Casanova]

On Mon, 23 Apr 2018 05:51:09 -0700 (PDT), the following

appeared in talk.origins, posted by Alan Kleinman MD PhD
<klei...@sti.net>:

>On Sunday, April 22, 2018 at 11:40:02 AM UTC-7, Andre G. Isaak wrote:
>> In article <6LidnaI1J7qiU0HH...@giganews.com>,
>> John Harshman <jhar...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>>
>> > I've returned after a two-week vacation. Did anything noteworthy happen
>> > while I was gone?
>>
>> Ray published his book and has been nominated for a pulitzer.
>>
>> Jonathan used complexity theory to solve every single problem in the
>> middle east and has been nominated for the nobel peace prize.
>>
>> Pagano has disproven general relativity and has been nominated for the
>> nobel prize in physics.
>>
>> Kleinkleinman has finally proven that birds do not actually exist, for
>> which he was awarded a pair of binoculars by the National Audubon
>> Society.

>You should borrow my binoculars and take a closer look at the Lenski and Kishony experiments.

They experimented on birds? For shame! I assume they were
Tom Lehrer fans...?

>> The Donald claimed that there was no collusion.
>>
>> Kellyanne Conway said something that was true.
>>
>> And Spock-with-a-Beard from "Mirror Mirror" has usurped the U.S.
>> presidency.
>>
>> Andre
>>
>> --
>> To email remove 'invalid' & replace 'gm' with well known Google mail service.

[Martin Harran]

On Sun, 22 Apr 2018 11:02:39 -0700, John Harshman

<jhar...@pacbell.net> wrote:

>I've returned after a two-week vacation. Did anything noteworthy happen
>while I was gone?

You and I have formed an alliance against Nyikos ... well at least
according to him, we have.

[Wolffan]

On 23 Apr 2018, Bob Casanova wrote
(in article<dh9sdd9iluqm2hoil...@4ax.com>):

> On Mon, 23 Apr 2018 05:49:33 -0700 (PDT), the following
> appeared in talk.origins, posted by Alan Kleinman MD PhD
> <klei...@sti.net>:
>
> > On Sunday, April 22, 2018 at 11:20:02 AM UTC-7, *Hemidactylus* wrote:
> > > John Harshman <jhar...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> > > > I've returned after a two-week vacation. Did anything noteworthy happen
> > > > while I was gone?
> > > You were absent? Jonathan solved the nagging complexity problem through
> > > salacious pornographic voyeurism. Peter has added Martin to his shit-list
> > > (we internet hellions and overdogs had an official induction
> > > ceremony...forgot to email you the invite). Pags is still doing what he
> > > excels at whatever that happens to be. I think DrDr is still posting
> > > futilely.
>
> > I think
>
> That has yet to be demonstrated.

oh... it’s been demonstrated that the Feather Fetishist can’t do math,
which requires thought, so he almost certainly can’t think.

[Wolffan]

On 23 Apr 2018, Bob Casanova wrote

(in article<9i9sddpvbh7o4oqd1...@4ax.com>):

> On Mon, 23 Apr 2018 05:51:09 -0700 (PDT), the following
> appeared in talk.origins, posted by Alan Kleinman MD PhD
> <klei...@sti.net>:
>
> > On Sunday, April 22, 2018 at 11:40:02 AM UTC-7, Andre G. Isaak wrote:
> > > In article<6LidnaI1J7qiU0HH...@giganews.com>,
> > > John Harshman <jhar...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> > >
> > > > I've returned after a two-week vacation. Did anything noteworthy happen
> > > > while I was gone?
> > >
> > > Ray published his book and has been nominated for a pulitzer.
> > >
> > > Jonathan used complexity theory to solve every single problem in the
> > > middle east and has been nominated for the nobel peace prize.
> > >
> > > Pagano has disproven general relativity and has been nominated for the
> > > nobel prize in physics.
> > >
> > > Kleinkleinman has finally proven that birds do not actually exist, for
> > > which he was awarded a pair of binoculars by the National Audubon
> > > Society.
>
> > You should borrow my binoculars and take a closer look at the Lenski and
> > Kishony experiments.
>
> They experimented on birds? For shame! I assume they were
> Tom Lehrer fans...?

That’s what rmns is good for: showing how to poison pigeons in the park.

[Wolffan]

On 24 Apr 2018, Martin Harran wrote
(in article<5c4uddpf6bosi4doo...@4ax.com>):

Petey der Gross is just being his normal, lovable, affable, gregarious, self.

[Andre G. Isaak]

In article <0001HW.208F503702...@news.supernews.com>,

As long as you use at least three different poisons.

Otherwise your impiety and lack of propriety will gain much notoriety by
creating a mutant sequel to 'The Birds".

[Alan Kleinman MD PhD]

On Monday, April 23, 2018 at 11:35:03 AM UTC-7, Bob Casanova wrote:
> On Mon, 23 Apr 2018 05:49:33 -0700 (PDT), the following
> appeared in talk.origins, posted by Alan Kleinman MD PhD

> :
>
> >On Sunday, April 22, 2018 at 11:20:02 AM UTC-7, *Hemidactylus* wrote:
> >> John Harshman <jhar...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> >> > I've returned after a two-week vacation. Did anything noteworthy happen
> >> > while I was gone?
> >> >
> >> You were absent? Jonathan solved the nagging complexity problem through
> >> salacious pornographic voyeurism. Peter has added Martin to his shit-list
> >> (we internet hellions and overdogs had an official induction
> >> ceremony...forgot to email you the invite). Pags is still doing what he
> >> excels at whatever that happens to be. I think DrDr is still posting
> >> futilely.
>
> >I think
>
> That has yet to be demonstrated.

We know what you demonstrate, a very dim light.

[Alan Kleinman MD PhD]

On Tuesday, April 24, 2018 at 4:45:03 AM UTC-7, Wolffan wrote:
> On 23 Apr 2018, Bob Casanova wrote
> (in article<dh9sdd9iluqm2hoil...@4ax.com>):
>
> > On Mon, 23 Apr 2018 05:49:33 -0700 (PDT), the following
> > appeared in talk.origins, posted by Alan Kleinman MD PhD

> >:
> >
> > > On Sunday, April 22, 2018 at 11:20:02 AM UTC-7, *Hemidactylus* wrote:
> > > > John Harshman <jhar...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> > > > > I've returned after a two-week vacation. Did anything noteworthy happen
> > > > > while I was gone?
> > > > You were absent? Jonathan solved the nagging complexity problem through
> > > > salacious pornographic voyeurism. Peter has added Martin to his shit-list
> > > > (we internet hellions and overdogs had an official induction
> > > > ceremony...forgot to email you the invite). Pags is still doing what he
> > > > excels at whatever that happens to be. I think DrDr is still posting
> > > > futilely.
> >
> > > I think
> >
> > That has yet to be demonstrated.
>
> oh... it’s been demonstrated that the Feather Fetishist can’t do math,
> which requires thought, so he almost certainly can’t think.

So where are your publications on the mathematics of rmns? The mathematicians in the reptiles grow feathers crowd have gone extinct.

[Alan Kleinman MD PhD]

On Tuesday, April 24, 2018 at 5:15:03 AM UTC-7, Andre G. Isaak wrote:
> In article <0001HW.208F503702...@news.supernews.com>,
> Wolffan <akwo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On 23 Apr 2018, Bob Casanova wrote
> > (in article<9i9sddpvbh7o4oqd1...@4ax.com>):
> >
> > > On Mon, 23 Apr 2018 05:51:09 -0700 (PDT), the following
> > > appeared in talk.origins, posted by Alan Kleinman MD PhD

> > > :
> > >
> > > > On Sunday, April 22, 2018 at 11:40:02 AM UTC-7, Andre G. Isaak wrote:
> > > > > In article<6LidnaI1J7qiU0HH...@giganews.com>,
> > > > > John Harshman <jhar...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > I've returned after a two-week vacation. Did anything noteworthy
> > > > > > happen
> > > > > > while I was gone?
> > > > >
> > > > > Ray published his book and has been nominated for a pulitzer.
> > > > >
> > > > > Jonathan used complexity theory to solve every single problem in the
> > > > > middle east and has been nominated for the nobel peace prize.
> > > > >
> > > > > Pagano has disproven general relativity and has been nominated for the
> > > > > nobel prize in physics.
> > > > >
> > > > > Kleinkleinman has finally proven that birds do not actually exist, for
> > > > > which he was awarded a pair of binoculars by the National Audubon
> > > > > Society.
> > >
> > > > You should borrow my binoculars and take a closer look at the Lenski and
> > > > Kishony experiments.
> > >
> > > They experimented on birds? For shame! I assume they were
> > > Tom Lehrer fans...?
> >
> > That’s what rmns is good for: showing how to poison pigeons in the park.
>
> As long as you use at least three different poisons.

You are slow at this Andre, the selection pressures don't have to be poisons. You should have learned this from the Lenski experiment. Do I have to remind you what that selection pressure is?

>
> Otherwise your impiety and lack of propriety will gain much notoriety by
> creating a mutant sequel to 'The Birds".

A poet and don't know it but your feats don't show it.

[Wolffan]

On 24 Apr 2018, Alan Kleinman MD PhD wrote
(in article<2be5f300-89a3-462a...@googlegroups.com>):

And the Feather Fetishist still can’t show his work! Squeak for me, Feather
Fetish Boy!

[Alan Kleinman MD PhD]

That's not the problem Wolfie, the problem is that you have only taken dumbbell math. No matter how much you huff and puff, all you have done is blown it.

[Wolffan]

On 24 Apr 2018, Alan Kleinman MD PhD wrote

(in article<79c5f843-b544-4349...@googlegroups.com>):

yes it is, Feather Fetish Boy! Squeak for me!

[Alan Kleinman MD PhD]

You just one more huffer and puffer who doesn't know how to calculate the probability of at least 1 beneficial mutation occurring in a population size "N" and mutation rate "m".

[Mark Isaak]

On 4/24/18 5:20 AM, Alan Kleinman MD PhD wrote:
> On Tuesday, April 24, 2018 at 5:15:03 AM UTC-7, Andre G. Isaak wrote:
>> In article <0001HW.208F503702...@news.supernews.com>,
>> Wolffan <akwo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 23 Apr 2018, Bob Casanova wrote
>>> (in article<9i9sddpvbh7o4oqd1...@4ax.com>):
>>>
>>>> On Mon, 23 Apr 2018 05:51:09 -0700 (PDT), the following
>>>> appeared in talk.origins, posted by Alan Kleinman MD PhD

>>>> [...]

>>>>> You should borrow my binoculars and take a closer look at the Lenski and
>>>>> Kishony experiments.
>>>>
>>>> They experimented on birds? For shame! I assume they were
>>>> Tom Lehrer fans...?
>>>
>>> That’s what rmns is good for: showing how to poison pigeons in the park.
>>
>> As long as you use at least three different poisons.
> You are slow at this Andre, the selection pressures don't have to be poisons. You should have learned this from the Lenski experiment. Do I have to remind you what that selection pressure is?

You would need to learn about selection pressure first. What selection
pressures routinely affect typical city-living pigeons today? I can
think of seven off the top of my head. From the way you talk about
selection, shouldn't we expect pigeons to be extinct, at least in
cities? And yet they thrive.

--
Mark Isaak eciton (at) curioustaxonomy (dot) net
"I think if we ever reach the point where we think we thoroughly
understand who we are and where we come from, we will have failed."
- Carl Sagan

[Alan Kleinman MD PhD]

On Tuesday, April 24, 2018 at 8:15:03 AM UTC-7, Mark Isaak wrote:
> On 4/24/18 5:20 AM, Alan Kleinman MD PhD wrote:
> > On Tuesday, April 24, 2018 at 5:15:03 AM UTC-7, Andre G. Isaak wrote:
> >> In article <0001HW.208F503702...@news.supernews.com>,
> >> Wolffan <akwo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>> On 23 Apr 2018, Bob Casanova wrote
> >>> (in article<9i9sddpvbh7o4oqd1...@4ax.com>):
> >>>
> >>>> On Mon, 23 Apr 2018 05:51:09 -0700 (PDT), the following
> >>>> appeared in talk.origins, posted by Alan Kleinman MD PhD
> >>>> [...]
> >>>>> You should borrow my binoculars and take a closer look at the Lenski and
> >>>>> Kishony experiments.
> >>>>
> >>>> They experimented on birds? For shame! I assume they were
> >>>> Tom Lehrer fans...?
> >>>
> >>> That’s what rmns is good for: showing how to poison pigeons in the park.
> >>
> >> As long as you use at least three different poisons.
> > You are slow at this Andre, the selection pressures don't have to be poisons. You should have learned this from the Lenski experiment. Do I have to remind you what that selection pressure is?
>
> You would need to learn about selection pressure first. What selection
> pressures routinely affect typical city-living pigeons today? I can
> think of seven off the top of my head. From the way you talk about
> selection, shouldn't we expect pigeons to be extinct, at least in
> cities? And yet they thrive.

You are too much of a dumb cluck to realize that city-living for a pigeon is a low selection pressure environment. Plenty of food, plenty of shelter and few intense selection pressures. But if you think they are evolving to whatever selection pressures they are exposed to by rmns, you are a dumb cluck. Replicators thrive in low selection environments dumb cluck. That's what farmers try to create in their fields for their crops, that's what ranchers do for their herds, that's what anyone does when they care for their replicators whether they are plant or animal dumb cluck.

[Reentrant]

This story from October 2017 was highlighted today by naturalist Chris
Packham on a popular daytime TV show here in the UK. (Yes I confess, I'm
a Countdown watcher)

<http://www.ox.ac.uk/news/2017-10-20-british-birds-adapt-their-beaks-birdfeeders>

Here the "selection pressure" is extra food being provided by humans in
the UK, but not in Holland, resulting is a genetic change within 40
years that has been analysed at the DNA level.

Kleinman only sees selection as a negative effect but of course it can
be positive too when new opportunities present themselves.

--
Reentrant

[Alan Kleinman MD PhD]

Rustentrant you are a dumb cluck. They didn't identify any mutations. Why are you so stupid. Do you think every phenotypic change is due to rmns? You are a blithering idiot if you do. And you are a blithering idiot anyway. Learn the difference between rmns and recombination and natural selection. And learn introductory probability theory rustbrain.
>
> --
> Reentrant

[Bob Casanova]

On Tue, 24 Apr 2018 12:15:40 +0100, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Martin Harran
<martin...@gmail.com>:

Hey, don't forget me!

"Our name is Legion."

[Bob Casanova]

On Tue, 24 Apr 2018 06:10:43 -0600, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by "Andre G. Isaak"
<agi...@gm.invalid>:

Cool; that's *two*!

[Bob Casanova]

On Tue, 24 Apr 2018 07:44:55 -0400, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Wolffan <akwo...@gmail.com>:

I'm glad *someone* got it... ;-)

[Bob Casanova]

On Tue, 24 Apr 2018 05:11:22 -0700 (PDT), the following

appeared in talk.origins, posted by Alan Kleinman MD PhD

<klei...@sti.net>:

>On Monday, April 23, 2018 at 11:35:03 AM UTC-7, Bob Casanova wrote:
>> On Mon, 23 Apr 2018 05:49:33 -0700 (PDT), the following
>> appeared in talk.origins, posted by Alan Kleinman MD PhD
>> :
>>
>> >On Sunday, April 22, 2018 at 11:20:02 AM UTC-7, *Hemidactylus* wrote:
>> >> John Harshman <jhar...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>> >> > I've returned after a two-week vacation. Did anything noteworthy happen
>> >> > while I was gone?
>> >> >
>> >> You were absent? Jonathan solved the nagging complexity problem through
>> >> salacious pornographic voyeurism. Peter has added Martin to his shit-list
>> >> (we internet hellions and overdogs had an official induction
>> >> ceremony...forgot to email you the invite). Pags is still doing what he
>> >> excels at whatever that happens to be. I think DrDr is still posting
>> >> futilely.
>>
>> >I think
>>
>> That has yet to be demonstrated.

>We know

That has yet to be demonstrated.

("We"? You have a tapeworm?)

[Bob Casanova]

On Tue, 24 Apr 2018 17:29:21 +0100, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Reentrant
<reen...@invalid.org.uk>:

It has yet to be shown that Allie sees *anything* other than
his deficient "fundamental equations" (he certainly can't,
or won't, see objective evidence), and even he can't show
that they work, even in the restricted scenario of the
experiments he so loves to tout.

[Alan Kleinman MD PhD]

On Tuesday, April 24, 2018 at 10:25:03 AM UTC-7, Bob Casanova wrote:
> On Tue, 24 Apr 2018 05:11:22 -0700 (PDT), the following
> appeared in talk.origins, posted by Alan Kleinman MD PhD

> :
>
> >On Monday, April 23, 2018 at 11:35:03 AM UTC-7, Bob Casanova wrote:
> >> On Mon, 23 Apr 2018 05:49:33 -0700 (PDT), the following
> >> appeared in talk.origins, posted by Alan Kleinman MD PhD
> >> :
> >>
> >> >On Sunday, April 22, 2018 at 11:20:02 AM UTC-7, *Hemidactylus* wrote:
> >> >> John Harshman <jhar...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> >> >> > I've returned after a two-week vacation. Did anything noteworthy happen
> >> >> > while I was gone?
> >> >> >
> >> >> You were absent? Jonathan solved the nagging complexity problem through
> >> >> salacious pornographic voyeurism. Peter has added Martin to his shit-list
> >> >> (we internet hellions and overdogs had an official induction
> >> >> ceremony...forgot to email you the invite). Pags is still doing what he
> >> >> excels at whatever that happens to be. I think DrDr is still posting
> >> >> futilely.
> >>
> >> >I think
> >>
> >> That has yet to be demonstrated.
>
> >We know
>
> That has yet to be demonstrated.
>
> ("We"? You have a tapeworm?)

First the dim bulb gets his lines from bugs bunny and now he turns to the three stooges. When will the dim bulb read and understand an introductory probability text? That one is not in the cards.

[Peter Nyikos]

On Sunday, April 22, 2018 at 2:20:02 PM UTC-4, *Hemidactylus* wrote:
> John Harshman <jhar...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> > I've returned after a two-week vacation. Did anything noteworthy happen
> > while I was gone?
> >
> You were absent?

Yeah, I hadn't noticed that either. There was a time when I cared
enough about John to worry about him publicly when I hadn't seen
him for that long, but those days are forever over, and John
has only himself to fault for that.

> Jonathan solved the nagging complexity problem through
> salacious pornographic voyeurism.

Probably another side effect of what appears to be a permanent
case of bipolar mania. Jonathan had bragged to Joe LyonLayden
that he hadn't slept in a year and a half since he'd stopped
smoking. Joe pointed out that such behavior is typical of bipolar mania.

> Peter has added Martin to his shit-list

MONTHS after Martin added me to his shit list. And the only
reason I finally followed suit is that Martin brought trumped up
charges against me of the sort of thing that Tony Pagano is guilty of,
but bears less resemblance to my behavior than it does to Martin's own.

It was a memorable occasion. John Harshman posted a crack in reply
about "conspiracy," I countered with Harshman's shabby
record about using that word (and "paranioa," which Martin had
used in his wild trumped-up charge) as a talisman for warding off
legitimate criticism, and then YOU countered me while both Martin
and John (no, there wasn't any Abraham involved) remained permanently idle.


Since then, Bob Casanova has shackled himself to Martin's trumped up charge,
adding embellishments of his own, as recently as this week, and Martin
has continued to dig ho

> (we internet hellions and overdogs had an official induction
> ceremony...forgot to email you the invite). Pags is still doing what he
> excels at whatever that happens to be.

Martin's trumped up charges were probably made with Pagano in mind.

Years ago, when Pagano had been absent for years, John Harshman prepared
the climate for Martin's (and Casanova's) trumped up charges by falsely
comparing me to Pagano.

Only God, if there is a God, knows how many participants and lurkers
have thus been primed by John to view these libelous charges with a shake
of the head and thoughts like, "Oh, so Peter *is* one of those Pagano
types. What a pity, that a tenured full professor at a research
university should shame his university by such paranoid behavior."

Peter Nyikos

[John Harshman]

So I see that Peter hasn't changed while I've been gone. To quote 45: Sad.

[Peter Nyikos]

On Sunday, April 22, 2018 at 5:25:03 PM UTC-4, Paul J Gans wrote:

> In all the years I've been here I've always wondered WHY they care
> so much. They have their beliefs. WHY do they want science to
> confirm them?

Hi, Paul. Long time no see.

Martin Harran took some advice of yours very much to heart when
you reacted emphatically to him saying something much more modest:

__________________ excerpt ___________________________

>Actually, most religious believers that I know care very much about
>evidence and that their religious beliefs are not in contradiction of
>any evidence. That's a long established principle going back at last
>as far as St. Augustine in the 5th century.

Now you've gone and done it. My advice is for you to quickly dig a
deep hole, get into it, and pull the entrance closed after you.

================ end of excerpt
from
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/B15iLx6215Q/SdIl_nHGAgAJ
Subject: Re: What's the shroud of Turin?
Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2018 21:10:10 +0000 (UTC)
Message-ID: <p9bnjh$kkp$2...@reader2.panix.com>

Martin has followed your advice to the letter ever since, posting
a completely off-topic dig at me [1] within two hours:

Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2018 21:55:55 +0100

and then he disappeared from that thread, until I informed him,
weeks later, that the thread had been revived. And then, last week,
he re-entered the "Shroud" thread, still in perfect harmony
with your advice.

[1] I think you will be pleased to know that I had not even SEEN
that "Shroud" thread back then or even for several weeks thereafter.
You should be tickled pink about how Martin did it without
even mentioning me by name, but only made some wild unsupported
predictions about "our resident panspermia expert."


Are you as proud of Martin as you are of jillery, Dr. Gansenstein?


Peter Nyikos

[Peter Nyikos]

You will be even sadder when a reply I did to
you late last week finally sinks in. It's about a dereliction
of duty by you that goes back to way before your absence:

_______________________ excerpt __________________________

you've left Erik Simpson
in the lurch for well over a month on the "baby bird caught in
amber" thread. You never gave your expert opinion on the subject
of what qualifies as a type specimen in the wake of my questions
in the following post:

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/MIh2gALIAng/sBP-KSCBAQAJ
Subject: Re: baby bird caught in amber
Date: Fri, 9 Mar 2018 17:52:38 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <ed6dbfd7-b25b-4598...@googlegroups.com>

Poor Erik tied himself in knots trying to substitute for you:
unable to score a decisive victory over me on the issues,
he posted a bunch of false accusations about me that were
a stretch even for him. As I refuted him on each point, he
clammed up

====================== end of excerpt from post on "Judge Jones..." thread.

That seems to be par for the course for Erik these days:
stays on topic until he knows he can't win, then delivers some
insulting comments, then clams up. He even short cut the
process last time around (yesterday, in fact) by delivering an
insult and then *immediately* announcing that he is done with
this topic.

But none of that should concern you. What you need to focus on
is that unfinished business wrt "type specimen."


Peter Nyikos
Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--
University of South Carolina

[Peter Nyikos]

On Monday, April 23, 2018 at 9:50:03 AM UTC-4, zencycle wrote:
> On Sunday, April 22, 2018 at 8:35:03 PM UTC-4, jonathan wrote:
>
> >
> > Let's put it this way, the butterfly effect and
> > the non-linear behavior inherent in evolving
> > systems shows that starting from initial
> > conditions to understand the whole, model
> > reality or predict the future, are futile.
>
> And no one here, or in the world of legitimate science, ever said it was possible to start from a single point data point and predict emergent systems without knowing all the variables. This has been explained to you ad nauseam, but your egotistic faux intellectual drivel belies your complete inability actually learn anything.
>
> > Since that kind of detailed historical information
> > as I said is useless for understanding nature or
> > predicting the future of evolving systems.
>
> so understanding the past gives us no predictive insight at all - yeah, that's real fucking smart....

And par for the course for someone who hasn't slept for over
a year and a half. For a possible diagnosis of that anomaly, see
my reply to Hemidactylus.

Peter Nyikos

[Andre G. Isaak]

In article <d458f3d4-396b-44e3...@googlegroups.com>,

It should be apparent that we were discussing Lehrer's research which
tended to focus on poisons.

[Andre G. Isaak]

In article <fvpuddpe9rljo188k...@4ax.com>,
Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:

> Cool; that's *two*!


Two what?

[Andre G. Isaak]

In article <agisaak-523FA7...@news.eternal-september.org>,

"Andre G. Isaak" <agi...@gm.invalid> wrote:

> In article <fvpuddpe9rljo188k...@4ax.com>,
> Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
>
> > Cool; that's *two*!
>
>
> Two what?
>
> Andre

Never mind. I figured it out.

[Alan Kleinman MD PhD]

On Tuesday, April 24, 2018 at 12:15:03 PM UTC-7, Andre G. Isaak wrote:
> In article <d458f3d4-396b-44e3...@googlegroups.com>,

Selection pressures do not have to be poisons. They can be starvation, thermal stress, predation, dehydration, radiation,... The point is that they all work the same except for the number of genetic loci targeted and the number of mutations required for adaptation. What is unique about many toxins is that the target only a single genetic locus which makes these types of selection pressures the easiest to adapt to by rmns (except when the poisons are used in combination).

[Peter Nyikos]

On Sunday, April 22, 2018 at 5:25:03 PM UTC-4, Paul J Gans wrote:

Hi, again, Paul. After giving you the good news (from your POV)
I'm following with some bad news, but only after some more "good news".


Picking up where I left off in my first reply:

> A quick definition of science is that it is an attempt to explain
> the observed phenomena of the world (i.e. universe) WITHOUT resorting
> to supernatural explanations.
>
> So why oh why do they want to add the supernatural to science?
>
> Many scientists are religious. They have no problem keeping
> religion and science separate.

Didn't Martin Harran keep them separate enough for your taste
on the thread where the exchange took place which I documented
for you in the "good news" reply?

Your advice to Martin came less than three minutes AFTER
you had posted a long reply to JD Wolfe in which you kept claiming
that the shroud had been dated to the middle ages.

Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2018 21:07:47 +0000 (UTC)

Is it just a coincidence that Martin had warned Mark Isaak not
to put much faith in the Carbon-14 dating? It had happened on
the preceding day.

Date: Sun, 25 Mar 2018 17:10:50 +0100

You ignored Martin's replies to Mark, but don't let that bother you:
Martin's precipitous exit from the whole "Shroud" thread left
you with a free hand to neutralize what Martin had written to Mark, and
you continued with another reply to JD reinforcing your first one
after Martin had disappeared for what turned out to be weeks:

Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2018 23:53:28 +0000 (UTC)


So much for the "good news". Now for the "bad news". After I very
belatedly discovered that thread, I did a detailed reply to
that 23:53:28 +0000 post of yours. Then Glenn
followed up to me with an argument for the Shroud
having been witnessed by thousands before 1000CE.

As the dominant figure in soc.history.medieval for decades,
you may want to do damage control. It's the only post Glenn has
made to that thread so far, so you should have no trouble finding it.

Peter Nyikos
Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--
University of South Carolina

http://people.math.sc.edu/nyikos/

[Andre G. Isaak]

In article <b054ab8d-7ed8-42b9...@googlegroups.com>,

Clearly you are not familiar with Lehrer's research in this area. While
it's true that most people are more familiar with Lehrer for his
consulting work at Vatican II and for his screenplay _The Eternal
Triangle_ (one of MGMs top-grossing films), he *was* in fact a
practicing mathematician who specialized in statistics and thus
presumably knows far more on the topic than your undergraduate AMAT text
does.

More importantly, though, while at Harvard he also did extensive
research on the evolution of resistance to toxins in certain species of
feathered reptiles. What he found is that, even when using only a single
toxin, the reptiles were far more likely to develop an aversion to the
researcher than they were to develop resistance to the toxins themselves.

Simultaneous administration of multiple toxins showed the exact same
results.

[Peter Nyikos]

On Tuesday, April 24, 2018 at 1:25:02 PM UTC-4, Bob Casanova wrote:
> On Tue, 24 Apr 2018 12:15:40 +0100, the following appeared
> in talk.origins, posted by Martin Harran
> <martin...@gmail.com>:
>
> >On Sun, 22 Apr 2018 11:02:39 -0700, John Harshman
> ><jhar...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> >
> >>I've returned after a two-week vacation. Did anything noteworthy happen
> >>while I was gone?
> >
> >You and I have formed an alliance against Nyikos ... well at least
> >according to him, we have.

Martin is indulging in wishful thinking. I only told him that at the rate
he is going, he may soon become an ally of the same Harshman who his (Martin's)
alter ego, AlwaysAskingQuestions, had throughly thrashed a couple of
years ago. I also told him that Harshman had sent two peace feelers
towards him. I described one of them in my reply to Hemidactylus
earlier today.

> Hey, don't forget me!

Now *that* was an Alliance Made in Hell, as you acknowledge next. :-)

> "Our name is Legion."

You shackled yourself to the most idiotic, ignorant, hateful, utterly
false statement to which I've ever seen anyone voluntarily shackle
himself. Made by Martin, and forged into an unbreakable
alliance by yourself.

I believe Dr. Gansenstein will be proud of both of you and your
budding friendship. He witnessed lots of them in soc.history.medieval,
but I don't think he's ever seen quite the like of it there.

Peter Nyikos

[Wolffan]

On 24 Apr 2018, Alan Kleinman MD PhD wrote

(in article<315fa58f-3493-4fcd...@googlegroups.com>):

nah. Squeak for me, Feather Fetish Boy!

[Alan Kleinman MD PhD]

On Tuesday, April 24, 2018 at 1:15:03 PM UTC-7, Andre G. Isaak wrote:
> In article <b054ab8d-7ed8-42b9...@googlegroups.com>,

I finally found his publication on toxins and feathered reptiles:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yhuMLpdnOjY

>
> Simultaneous administration of multiple toxins showed the exact same
> results.

Selection pressures do have that effect.

[Wolffan]

On 24 Apr 2018, Bob Casanova wrote
(in article<ptpudd9g3o8vvqjlt...@4ax.com>):

The classics never die. And people like the Feather Fetishist never have a
clue.

[Wolffan]

On 24 Apr 2018, John Harshman wrote
(in article<LZidnbm1TpK06ELH...@giganews.com>):

oh, Petey der Gross is sad, alright

[Alan Kleinman MD PhD]

He huffs and he puffs and he blows it.

[Peter Nyikos]

On Sunday, April 22, 2018 at 10:15:03 PM UTC-4, jonathan wrote:
> On 4/22/2018 9:39 PM, jillery wrote:
> > On Sun, 22 Apr 2018 18:20:42 -0400, jonathan <WriteI...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> >> What is love?
> >
> >
> > Baby don't hurt me
> > Don't hurt me
> > No more
> >
>
>
> Oh ye of little imagination and
> zero abstract abilities. There is
> no more important question than
> that of love.

Unless it is that of hate.


> Love as in the union of opposites, or
> the critical interaction of order and
> disorder (chaos theory).


Hate as in a different union of opposites, as
in Harlan Ellison's "I Have No Mouth, And I Must Scream."


> Or love as in the phase transition between
> the opposites of static and chaotic attractors
> (self-organization or evolution)
>

Aren't you afraid of emptying love of real content with
clinical comments like this?


> Love as in the union of opposites as in our
> constitution (order) and Bill of Rights (freedom
> or disorder)

Hate as in the union of opposites in the words of
O'Brien, "If you want to visualize the future, picture
a boot stamping on a human face -- forever."

[Quoted from memory, so I may have gotten some details irrelevantly wrong.]


> Love as in the balance between the opposing
> forces of gravity and cosmic expansion.

Or between the north poles of two magnets and you
forcibly pushing them together.


> Or yes and even central to how genes are
> passed on.

The love life of asexual viruses must be
a challenge to fit into this poetic gobbledygook of yours.

> So you see, whether the origin of life,

You call the birth of an organism "the origin of life"?


> or our societal future even the universe
> itself

... headed towards accelerating expansion and the death of all
life and all stars, according to the most widespread opinion
among cosmologists.


> and religious beliefs to boot
> ....love is the answer

Sorry, the narrator of Mark Twain's "The Mysterious Stranger"
didn't see it that way at the end of the story. He was trapped
in a meaningless cosmos in which he was the only living entity.


>
> Just as Emily said...

>
>
> "Love - is anterior to Life
> Posterior - to Death
> Initial of Creation, and
> The Exponent of Earth"
>
>
> She was right.


Emily died before any of the works I mentioned were published. Get over it.


Peter Nyikos

[Mark Isaak]

On 4/24/18 8:35 AM, Alan Kleinman MD PhD wrote:
> On Tuesday, April 24, 2018 at 8:15:03 AM UTC-7, Mark Isaak wrote:
>> On 4/24/18 5:20 AM, Alan Kleinman MD PhD wrote:
>>> On Tuesday, April 24, 2018 at 5:15:03 AM UTC-7, Andre G. Isaak wrote:
>>>> In article <0001HW.208F503702...@news.supernews.com>,

>>>> Wolffan <akwo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 23 Apr 2018, Bob Casanova wrote

>>>>> (in article<9i9sddpvbh7o4oqd1...@4ax.com>):
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Mon, 23 Apr 2018 05:51:09 -0700 (PDT), the following

>>>>>> appeared in talk.origins, posted by Alan Kleinman MD PhD

>>>>>> [...]

>>>>>>> You should borrow my binoculars and take a closer look at the Lenski and
>>>>>>> Kishony experiments.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> They experimented on birds? For shame! I assume they were
>>>>>> Tom Lehrer fans...?
>>>>>
>>>>> That’s what rmns is good for: showing how to poison pigeons in the park.
>>>>

>>>> As long as you use at least three different poisons.
>>> You are slow at this Andre, the selection pressures don't have to be poisons. You should have learned this from the Lenski experiment. Do I have to remind you what that selection pressure is?
>>

>> You would need to learn about selection pressure first. What selection
>> pressures routinely affect typical city-living pigeons today? I can
>> think of seven off the top of my head. From the way you talk about
>> selection, shouldn't we expect pigeons to be extinct, at least in
>> cities? And yet they thrive.

> You are too much of a dumb cluck to realize that city-living for a pigeon is a low selection pressure environment. Plenty of food, plenty of shelter and few intense selection pressures. But if you think they are evolving to whatever selection pressures they are exposed to by rmns, you are a dumb cluck. Replicators thrive in low selection environments dumb cluck. That's what farmers try to create in their fields for their crops, that's what ranchers do for their herds, that's what anyone does when they care for their replicators whether they are plant or animal dumb cluck.

If you think low selection pressure means lack of evolution, you are
even stupider than I suspected. (And "low" meaning what? killing less
than 99% of the population in an instant? Plenty of things kill a
significant fraction of pigeons.)

--
Mark Isaak eciton (at) curioustaxonomy (dot) net
"I think if we ever reach the point where we think we thoroughly
understand who we are and where we come from, we will have failed."
- Carl Sagan

[Alan Kleinman MD PhD]

Who is the stupid one? What makes you think that the intensity of selection has any effect on the evolutionary trajectory? Let's see if we can give you a simple example to give you some understanding that you didn't get in your graduate course in population genetics. Consider the Kishony experiment and to get full resistance to the drug requires mutations A,B,C, and D. Now run the Kishony experiment with only two areas on the plate, a zero concentration region and a low concentration region. Full resistance still requires mutations A,B,C, and D even with the single low-intensity selection region. Understand rubberband? The evolutionary trajectory is not dependent on the intensity of selection. No wonder you didn't get much out of your graduate course in population genetics.

[Peter Nyikos]

On Tuesday, April 24, 2018 at 1:00:03 PM UTC-4, Alan Kleinman MD PhD wrote:
> On Tuesday, April 24, 2018 at 9:30:03 AM UTC-7, Reentrant wrote:

> > On 24/04/2018 16:13, Mark Isaak wrote:
> > > On 4/24/18 5:20 AM, Alan Kleinman MD PhD wrote:
> > >> On Tuesday, April 24, 2018 at 5:15:03 AM UTC-7, Andre G. Isaak wrote:
> > >>> In article <0001HW.208F503702...@news.supernews.com>,
> > >>>   Wolffan <akwo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>>> On 23 Apr 2018, Bob Casanova wrote
> > >>>> (in article<9i9sddpvbh7o4oqd1...@4ax.com>):
> > >>>>
> > >>>>> On Mon, 23 Apr 2018 05:51:09 -0700 (PDT), the following
> > >>>>> appeared in talk.origins, posted by Alan Kleinman MD PhD
> > >>>>> [...]
> > >>>>>> You should borrow my binoculars and take a closer look at the
> > >>>>>> Lenski and
> > >>>>>> Kishony experiments.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> They experimented on birds? For shame! I assume they were
> > >>>>> Tom Lehrer fans...?
> > >>>>
> > >>>> That's what rmns is good for: showing how to poison pigeons in the
> > >>>> park.
> > >>>

> > >>> As long as you use at least three different poisons.

> > >> You are slow at this Andre, the selection pressures don't have to be
> > >> poisons. You should have learned this from the Lenski experiment. Do I
> > >> have to remind you what that selection pressure is?

Are you always this humorless when the joke is on you, Alan?


Mark Isaak may have tried to crack a joke below, but he is nowhere as
good at humor as Andre. [I've always wondered whether they two Isaaks were
related, but they've rebuffed all my attempts to find out.]

> > > You would need to learn about selection pressure first.  What selection
> > > pressures routinely affect typical city-living pigeons today?  I can
> > > think of seven off the top of my head.  From the way you talk about
> > > selection, shouldn't we expect pigeons to be extinct, at least in
> > > cities?  And yet they thrive.
> > >
> >

> > This story from October 2017 was highlighted today by naturalist Chris
> > Packham on a popular daytime TV show here in the UK. (Yes I confess, I'm
> > a Countdown watcher)
> >
> > <http://www.ox.ac.uk/news/2017-10-20-british-birds-adapt-their-beaks-birdfeeders>
> >
> > Here the "selection pressure" is extra food being provided by humans in
> > the UK, but not in Holland, resulting is a genetic change within 40
> > years that has been analysed at the DNA level.
> >
> > Kleinman only sees selection as a negative effect but of course it can
> > be positive too when new opportunities present themselves.

> Rustentrant you are a dumb cluck. They didn't identify any mutations.

How do you know the following bit doesn't refer to mutations?

"`We now know that this increase in beak length, and the difference in beak length between birds in Britain and mainland Europe, is down to genes that have evolved by natural selection.'

"The team also found that birds with genetic variants for longer beaks were more frequent visitors to the feeders than those birds which did not have that genetic variation."

Are you really quite sure that this is like that famous speckled
moth case, which favored mutations that had long been in place?


> Why are you so stupid. Do you think every phenotypic change is due to rmns?

As long as you are being this humorless, how about identifying
the phenotypic changes that you say were not genetic?


> You are a blithering idiot if you do. And you are a blithering idiot anyway. Learn the difference between rmns and recombination and natural selection. And learn introductory probability theory rustbrain.

Learn the meaning of the term "monomaniac", you almost-one-trick pony.

Peter Nyikos
Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--
University of South Carolina
http://people.math.sc.edu/nyikos/

PS I read one of the three papers you sent me. The editors of the
journal could not have been interested in your excruciatingly
elementary talk about the multiplicative rule, which any
mathematically literate person knows about. My guess is that
they liked the idea of a readable way of displaying it in action.

[Alan Kleinman MD PhD]

Do you always waste as much time as you do?

>
> > > > You would need to learn about selection pressure first.  What selection
> > > > pressures routinely affect typical city-living pigeons today?  I can
> > > > think of seven off the top of my head.  From the way you talk about
> > > > selection, shouldn't we expect pigeons to be extinct, at least in
> > > > cities?  And yet they thrive.
> > > >
> > >
> > > This story from October 2017 was highlighted today by naturalist Chris
> > > Packham on a popular daytime TV show here in the UK. (Yes I confess, I'm
> > > a Countdown watcher)
> > >
> > > <http://www.ox.ac.uk/news/2017-10-20-british-birds-adapt-their-beaks-birdfeeders>
> > >
> > > Here the "selection pressure" is extra food being provided by humans in
> > > the UK, but not in Holland, resulting is a genetic change within 40
> > > years that has been analysed at the DNA level.
> > >
> > > Kleinman only sees selection as a negative effect but of course it can
> > > be positive too when new opportunities present themselves.
>
> > Rustentrant you are a dumb cluck. They didn't identify any mutations.
>
> How do you know the following bit doesn't refer to mutations?
>
> "`We now know that this increase in beak length, and the difference in beak length between birds in Britain and mainland Europe, is down to genes that have evolved by natural selection.'

Because they would have identified the mutations. If you can't recognize an example of recombination and natural selection, that is your problem.

>
> "The team also found that birds with genetic variants for longer beaks were more frequent visitors to the feeders than those birds which did not have that genetic variation."
>
> Are you really quite sure that this is like that famous speckled
> moth case, which favored mutations that had long been in place?

The reptiles grow feathers crowd is always conflating recombination and natural selection with rmns. The mathematics and physics are different for the two phenomena.

>
>
> > Why are you so stupid. Do you think every phenotypic change is due to rmns?
>
> As long as you are being this humorless, how about identifying
> the phenotypic changes that you say were not genetic?

These are changes in phenotype by recombination. These phenotypic changes are no different than the breeding of Great Danes and Chihuahuas. The environmental conditions are selecting for particular phenotypes which mean that the remaining members with the more fit phenotypes are inbreeding re-enforcing those traits.

>
>
> > You are a blithering idiot if you do. And you are a blithering idiot anyway. Learn the difference between rmns and recombination and natural selection. And learn introductory probability theory rustbrain.
>
> Learn the meaning of the term "monomaniac", you almost-one-trick pony.

And you are a zero-trick pony.

>
> Peter Nyikos
> Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--
> University of South Carolina
> http://people.math.sc.edu/nyikos/
>
> PS I read one of the three papers you sent me. The editors of the
> journal could not have been interested in your excruciatingly
> elementary talk about the multiplicative rule, which any
> mathematically literate person knows about. My guess is that
> they liked the idea of a readable way of displaying it in action.

Of course, the peer reviewers and editors liked the papers, they published them. It is the first coherent explanation of how rmns works. Why don't you read the paper on combination selection pressures, it is not much more difficult and it makes it easy to understand why combination therapy works and how to apply these principles in the clinical medical situation. It also explains why the TOE is mathematically irrational crap. And then, why don't you see if you can teach it to students in the biology department so they have some idea of how the mechanisms of evolution work. Then you can go back and continue your whining and time wasting about the other posters in this forum.

[Glenn]

"Peter Nyikos" <nyi...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message news:8a42c7af-d441-42bc...@googlegroups.com...

> On Sunday, April 22, 2018 at 5:25:03 PM UTC-4, Paul J Gans wrote:
>
> Hi, again, Paul. After giving you the good news (from your POV)
> I'm following with some bad news, but only after some more "good news".
>
>
> Picking up where I left off in my first reply:
>
>> A quick definition of science is that it is an attempt to explain
>> the observed phenomena of the world (i.e. universe) WITHOUT resorting
>> to supernatural explanations.
>>
>> So why oh why do they want to add the supernatural to science?
>>
>> Many scientists are religious. They have no problem keeping
>> religion and science separate.

Many scientists are atheists.

"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind"
https://religiousnaturalism.org/science-and-religion-2/

[Andre G. Isaak]

In article <7edd856a-8113-4784...@googlegroups.com>,

Peter Nyikos <nyi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:

> [I've always wondered whether they two Isaaks were related, but they've
> rebuffed all my attempts to find out.]

We're related in the sense that all humans are related. I'm not,
however, aware of any particular familial relation.

[jillery]

On Tue, 24 Apr 2018 08:35:25 -0700 (PDT), Alan Kleinman MD PhD
<klei...@sti.net> wrote:

>On Tuesday, April 24, 2018 at 8:15:03 AM UTC-7, Mark Isaak wrote:
>> On 4/24/18 5:20 AM, Alan Kleinman MD PhD wrote:
>> > On Tuesday, April 24, 2018 at 5:15:03 AM UTC-7, Andre G. Isaak wrote:
>> >> In article <0001HW.208F503702...@news.supernews.com>,
>> >> Wolffan <akwo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >>> On 23 Apr 2018, Bob Casanova wrote
>> >>> (in article<9i9sddpvbh7o4oqd1...@4ax.com>):
>> >>>
>> >>>> On Mon, 23 Apr 2018 05:51:09 -0700 (PDT), the following
>> >>>> appeared in talk.origins, posted by Alan Kleinman MD PhD
>> >>>> [...]
>> >>>>> You should borrow my binoculars and take a closer look at the Lenski and
>> >>>>> Kishony experiments.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> They experimented on birds? For shame! I assume they were
>> >>>> Tom Lehrer fans...?
>> >>>
>> >>> That’s what rmns is good for: showing how to poison pigeons in the park.
>> >>
>> >> As long as you use at least three different poisons.
>> > You are slow at this Andre, the selection pressures don't have to be poisons. You should have learned this from the Lenski experiment. Do I have to remind you what that selection pressure is?
>>

>> You would need to learn about selection pressure first. What selection
>> pressures routinely affect typical city-living pigeons today? I can
>> think of seven off the top of my head. From the way you talk about
>> selection, shouldn't we expect pigeons to be extinct, at least in
>> cities? And yet they thrive.

>You are too much of a dumb cluck to realize that city-living for a pigeon is a low selection pressure environment. Plenty of food, plenty of shelter and few intense selection pressures. But if you think they are evolving to whatever selection pressures they are exposed to by rmns, you are a dumb cluck. Replicators thrive in low selection environments dumb cluck. That's what farmers try to create in their fields for their crops, that's what ranchers do for their herds, that's what anyone does when they care for their replicators whether they are plant or animal dumb cluck.

Even in the practical paradise you describe, where all physical needs
are met, natural selection proceeds apace, whenever there are more
than two individuals to compete against each other. That you neglect
that fact shows you have no idea what you're talking about.

--
I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.

Evelyn Beatrice Hall
Attributed to Voltaire

[jillery]

How many times does the joke have to buzz over your head before you
finally get it?

[Reentrant]

On 24/04/2018 17:59, Alan Kleinman MD PhD wrote:
> On Tuesday, April 24, 2018 at 9:30:03 AM UTC-7, Reentrant wrote:

>> On 24/04/2018 16:13, Mark Isaak wrote:

>>> On 4/24/18 5:20 AM, Alan Kleinman MD PhD wrote:
>>>> On Tuesday, April 24, 2018 at 5:15:03 AM UTC-7, Andre G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>> In article <0001HW.208F503702...@news.supernews.com>,
>>>>>   Wolffan <akwo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 23 Apr 2018, Bob Casanova wrote
>>>>>> (in article<9i9sddpvbh7o4oqd1...@4ax.com>):
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Mon, 23 Apr 2018 05:51:09 -0700 (PDT), the following
>>>>>>> appeared in talk.origins, posted by Alan Kleinman MD PhD

>>>>>>> [...]

>>>>>>>> You should borrow my binoculars and take a closer look at the
>>>>>>>> Lenski and
>>>>>>>> Kishony experiments.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> They experimented on birds? For shame! I assume they were
>>>>>>> Tom Lehrer fans...?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That’s what rmns is good for: showing how to poison pigeons in the
>>>>>> park.
>>>>>
>>>>> As long as you use at least three different poisons.
>>>> You are slow at this Andre, the selection pressures don't have to be
>>>> poisons. You should have learned this from the Lenski experiment. Do I
>>>> have to remind you what that selection pressure is?
>>>

>>> You would need to learn about selection pressure first.  What selection
>>> pressures routinely affect typical city-living pigeons today?  I can
>>> think of seven off the top of my head.  From the way you talk about
>>> selection, shouldn't we expect pigeons to be extinct, at least in
>>> cities?  And yet they thrive.
>>>
>>

>> This story from October 2017 was highlighted today by naturalist Chris
>> Packham on a popular daytime TV show here in the UK. (Yes I confess, I'm
>> a Countdown watcher)
>>
>> <http://www.ox.ac.uk/news/2017-10-20-british-birds-adapt-their-beaks-birdfeeders>
>>
>> Here the "selection pressure" is extra food being provided by humans in
>> the UK, but not in Holland, resulting is a genetic change within 40
>> years that has been analysed at the DNA level.
>>
>> Kleinman only sees selection as a negative effect but of course it can
>> be positive too when new opportunities present themselves.

> Rustentrant you are a dumb cluck. They didn't identify any mutations. Why are you so stupid. Do you think every phenotypic change is due to rmns? You are a blithering idiot if you do. And you are a blithering idiot anyway. Learn the difference between rmns and recombination and natural selection. And learn introductory probability theory rustbrain.
>>
>> --
>> Reentrant
>
>

I post a link to some Oxford University research and you respond with
insults. You are mentally unstable. Please seek help.

I dare you to show my post and your response to some of your (alleged)
medical colleagues and see what they say.

--
Reentrant

[*Hemidactylus*]

Andre G. Isaak <agi...@gm.invalid> wrote:

> In article <7edd856a-8113-4784...@googlegroups.com>,
> Peter Nyikos <nyi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
>> [I've always wondered whether they two Isaaks were related, but they've
>> rebuffed all my attempts to find out.]
>
> We're related in the sense that all humans are related. I'm not,
> however, aware of any particular familial relation.
>

What about musician Chris Isaak?

[Alan Kleinman MD PhD]

On Tuesday, April 24, 2018 at 11:55:02 PM UTC-7, jillery wrote:
> On Tue, 24 Apr 2018 08:35:25 -0700 (PDT), Alan Kleinman MD PhD

What exactly are the two individuals competing for? You don't realize that you've made a contradictory statement here. If individuals must compete for some resource in the environment, then their physical needs are not being met. That is what is happening in the Lenski experiment.

[Alan Kleinman MD PhD]

On Tuesday, April 24, 2018 at 11:55:03 PM UTC-7, jillery wrote:
> On Tue, 24 Apr 2018 12:26:44 -0700 (PDT), Alan Kleinman MD PhD

How many times does introductory probability theory have to buzz over your head before you finally get it?

[Alan Kleinman MD PhD]

You are too stupid to understand your own link. Please learn introductory probability theory.

>
> I dare you to show my post and your response to some of your (alleged)
> medical colleagues and see what they say.

Most of my medical colleagues have no idea how natural selection works thanks to the crappy job that biologists have done. Those colleagues who understand my work apply it in their practice and have greater success in treating infectious diseases.
>
> --
> Reentrant

[*Hemidactylus*]

He’s a broken record. He has discounted the importance of lateral gene
transfer in bacterial populations just the same as he seems to be
disparaging genetic recombination in sexually reproducing species. Why the
bother of having sex then?

Anyone who continues to mock the “feathers from reptiles crowd” is a circus
sideshow or carnival barker not worth taking seriously. Perfect fodder
alongside Pagano geocentrism for t.o. as we love us some intellectual
freaks.

[Peter Nyikos]

<crickets>

Like most corny habitual jokers, you have NO sense of humor when
the joke is on you. You show that below, all too well.

> >
> > Mark Isaak may have tried to crack a joke below, but he is nowhere as
> > good at humor as Andre. [I've always wondered whether they two Isaaks were
> > related, but they've rebuffed all my attempts to find out.]

> Do you always waste as much time as you do?

Pathetic comeback from someone who wastes EVERYONE'S time by
playing Usenet Treadmill Salesman, and by cracking inane jokes
partly to ward off criticism, but often just to participate
in a cascade of swapped inane wisecracks.

> >
> > > > > You would need to learn about selection pressure first.  What selection
> > > > > pressures routinely affect typical city-living pigeons today?  I can
> > > > > think of seven off the top of my head.  From the way you talk about
> > > > > selection, shouldn't we expect pigeons to be extinct, at least in
> > > > > cities?  And yet they thrive.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > This story from October 2017 was highlighted today by naturalist Chris
> > > > Packham on a popular daytime TV show here in the UK. (Yes I confess, I'm
> > > > a Countdown watcher)
> > > >
> > > > <http://www.ox.ac.uk/news/2017-10-20-british-birds-adapt-their-beaks-birdfeeders>
> > > >
> > > > Here the "selection pressure" is extra food being provided by humans in
> > > > the UK, but not in Holland, resulting is a genetic change within 40
> > > > years that has been analysed at the DNA level.
> > > >
> > > > Kleinman only sees selection as a negative effect but of course it can
> > > > be positive too when new opportunities present themselves.
> >
> > > Rustentrant you are a dumb cluck. They didn't identify any mutations.
> >
> > How do you know the following bit doesn't refer to mutations?

<crickets>

> > "`We now know that this increase in beak length, and the difference in beak length between birds in Britain and mainland Europe, is down to genes that have evolved by natural selection.'
> Because they would have identified the mutations. If you can't recognize an example of recombination and natural selection, that is your problem.
> >
> > "The team also found that birds with genetic variants for longer beaks were more frequent visitors to the feeders than those birds which did not have that genetic variation."
> >
> > Are you really quite sure that this is like that famous speckled
> > moth case, which favored mutations that had long been in place?

> The reptiles grow feathers crowd is always conflating recombination and natural selection with rmns. The mathematics and physics are different for the two phenomena.

Stop changing the subject, you monomaniac. Answer my question, or
admit that you were talking off the top of your head, and THEN move on.

You were rather fond of Charles Brenner, but if he were around today,
he just might treat you the way he treated John Harshman:

Challenged, you change the subject. That's not sensible.
I'd like to know who you are, what you have done with
John Harshman, and why you are posting in his name.
Charles Brenner in:
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/yM3vszXTTTc/Uh54CtvUBKkJ

> >
> > > Why are you so stupid. Do you think every phenotypic change is due to rmns?
> >
> > As long as you are being this humorless, how about identifying
> > the phenotypic changes that you say were not genetic?

> These are changes in phenotype by recombination.

How do you know?

[I admit, you *are* getting somewhere here, but only with
baby first steps.]

> These phenotypic changes are no different than the breeding of Great Danes and Chihuahuas.

How do you know?

> The environmental conditions are selecting for particular phenotypes which mean that the remaining members with the more fit phenotypes are inbreeding re-enforcing those traits.

A plausible alternative to what Rusentraut claimed, but one would think
you would have EVIDENCE for it at your fingertips to justify your
insulting put-down of him.

Where is that evidence? Until you produce some, you are under
suspicion of bluffing with a Nothing hand. And boy, you sure
are laying it on thick below:

> >
> > > You are a blithering idiot if you do. And you are a blithering idiot anyway. Learn the difference between rmns and recombination and natural selection. And learn introductory probability theory rustbrain.
> >
> > Learn the meaning of the term "monomaniac", you almost-one-trick pony.

And now you finally get your juvenile sense of humor back:

> And you are a zero-trick pony.

Did you really think this childish comeback was clever repartee?

I don't deal in tricks where you are concerned, Alan. I don't need to --
you are too incompetent to require tricks to show you up.


Remainder deleted, to be replied to later.

Peter Nyikos
Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--
University of South Carolina

http://www.math.sc.edu/~nyikos/

[Peter Nyikos]

On Tuesday, April 24, 2018 at 8:10:02 PM UTC-4, Alan Kleinman MD PhD wrote:
> On Tuesday, April 24, 2018 at 4:10:03 PM UTC-7, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> > On Tuesday, April 24, 2018 at 1:00:03 PM UTC-4, Alan Kleinman MD PhD wrote:
> > > On Tuesday, April 24, 2018 at 9:30:03 AM UTC-7, Reentrant wrote:
> > > > On 24/04/2018 16:13, Mark Isaak wrote:

> > > > > On 4/24/18 5:20 AM, Alan Kleinman MD PhD wrote:
> > > > >> On Tuesday, April 24, 2018 at 5:15:03 AM UTC-7, Andre G. Isaak wrote:
> > > > >>> In article <0001HW.208F503702...@news.supernews.com>,
> > > > >>> Wolffan <akwo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>>> On 23 Apr 2018, Bob Casanova wrote
> > > > >>>> (in article<9i9sddpvbh7o4oqd1...@4ax.com>):
> > > > >>>>

> > > > >>>>> On Mon, 23 Apr 2018 05:51:09 -0700 (PDT), the following
> > > > >>>>> appeared in talk.origins, posted by Alan Kleinman MD PhD

> > > > >>>>> [...]

> > > > >>>>>> You should borrow my binoculars and take a closer look at the
> > > > >>>>>> Lenski and
> > > > >>>>>> Kishony experiments.
> > > > >>>>>
> > > > >>>>> They experimented on birds? For shame! I assume they were
> > > > >>>>> Tom Lehrer fans...?
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>> That's what rmns is good for: showing how to poison pigeons in the
> > > > >>>> park.


> > >> > > As long as you use at least three different poisons.

> > >> > You are slow at this Andre, the selection pressures don't have to be poisons.\

> > >> > You should have learned this from the Lenski experiment. Do I have to remind
> > >> > you what that selection pressure is?
> > >>
> > >> It should be apparent that we were discussing Lehrer's research which
> > >> tended to focus on poisons.

> > >Selection pressures do not have to be poisons. They can be starvation, thermal stress, predation, dehydration, radiation,...
> > >The point is that they all work the same except for the number of genetic loci targeted and the number of mutations required for adaptation. What is unique about many toxins

> > > is that [they] target only a single genetic locus which makes these types of selection pressures the easiest to adapt to by rmns (except when the poisons are used in combination).

> >
> >
> > How many times does the joke have to buzz over your head before you
> > finally get it?

Still showing NO sense of humor when the joke is on you, you
let loose with a juvenile non sequitur:

> How many times does introductory probability theory have to buzz over your head before you finally get it?

I hope this does not turn into a long cascade of mindless repartee
between you and jillery. I hope jillery resists the temptation
to play tit-for-tat.


Peter Nyikos

[*Hemidactylus*]

To his credit Nyikos has wasted less time on you than others here. You are
irredeemably dogmatic.

“The team also found that birds with genetic variants for longer beaks were

more frequent visitors to the feeders than those birds which did not have
that genetic variation.”

Are these genetic variants in no way whatsoever related to mutations? Can
you back this up?

Regardless the extant genetic variation itself resulted from previous
mutations at some point in the evolution of these birds. It didn’t just
poof into existence unless you believe in miracles. Is that the root cause
of your perennial freak show here? A belief in supernatural intervention?

There is a difference between applying preplanned multiple targeted drug
regimes in the clinic and how evolution actually works in the wild where no
intelligent agent is behind the application of unplanned selective regimes.
Night and day. Organisms in the wild are not suddenly confronted with high
caliber weaponry focused exclusively at their weakest links on multiple
fronts. The clinical applications you talk about are overwhelmingly
synchronic where in the wild populations of organisms are adapting
diachronically to ecological adversities in a satisficing manner. At most
the problems they confront are weakly synchronic and not the result of an
intelligent adversary knowledgable of the intimate details of their
molecular weaknesses.

[Alan Kleinman MD PhD]

The wrong genetic material never gets laterally transferred in the imaginary world of Hemi. And the correct genetic material just magically appears. Why does 3 drug therapy work for the treatment of hiv? Doesn't hiv know about lateral transfer of genetic material? I don't disparage recombination. In fact, I've published a paper which explains the mathematics which governs random recombination.

>
> Anyone who continues to mock the “feathers from reptiles crowd” is a circus
> sideshow or carnival barker not worth taking seriously. Perfect fodder
> alongside Pagano geocentrism for t.o. as we love us some intellectual
> freaks.

When the reptiles grow feathers crowd fails to do their job and correctly explain how evolution works, what do you think they deserve? Stupid people like Dinky Dawkins thinks that anyone who doesn't believe in the TOE should be treated with derision. You blithering idiots deserve a little of your own medicine, especially because of the harm you have caused people with drug-resistant microbes, herbicide-resistant weeds, pesticide-resistant insects and less than durable cancer treatments.

[Alan Kleinman MD PhD]

Have you run so low on lines that you have to borrow one from Barbie?

>
> > How many times does introductory probability theory have to buzz over your head before you finally get it?
>
>
> I hope this does not turn into a long cascade of mindless repartee
> between you and jillery. I hope jillery resists the temptation
> to play tit-for-tat.

Do you enjoy playing hall monitor? Read the second paper and see what happens if a population has to deal with two or more instances of the multiplication rule simultaneously (that would be two or more simultaneous selection pressures). That kind of math is way out of Barbie's league.
>
>
> Peter Nyikos

[Peter Nyikos]

On Wednesday, April 25, 2018 at 9:05:03 AM UTC-4, Alan Kleinman MD PhD wrote:
> On Wednesday, April 25, 2018 at 5:35:02 AM UTC-7, *Hemidactylus* wrote:
> > Reentrant <reen...@invalid.org.uk> wrote:

> > > I post a link to some Oxford University research and you respond with
> > > insults. You are mentally unstable. Please seek help.
> > >
> > > I dare you to show my post and your response to some of your (alleged)
> > > medical colleagues and see what they say.

As usual, you shamelessly ducked this challenge: you just blathered
in general about a subset of your medical colleagues.

But now I challenge you to show what you wrote to ANY of your medical
colleagues -- as though that weren't obvious from Reentrant's words.

> > He's a broken record. He has discounted the importance of lateral gene
> > transfer in bacterial populations just the same as he seems to be
> > disparaging genetic recombination in sexually reproducing species. Why the
> > bother of having sex then?

> The wrong genetic material never gets laterally transferred in the imaginary world of Hemi. And the correct genetic material just magically appears. Why does 3 drug therapy work for the treatment of hiv?

Because it is three mutations [1] that need to be targeted. If it were two,
then 2 drug therapy would be adequate. If it were 4, then 4 drug therapy
would be needed, and so on ad infinitum.

[1] Or is it 3 sites, or 2 mutations with 2 sites in one of them?
Did you ever read the relevant literature to find out?

> Doesn't hiv know about lateral transfer of genetic material?

I know of lateral transfer in prokaryotes, and assorted eukaryotes.
Is there really lateral transfer between strains of the hiv virus?

> I don't disparage recombination. In fact, I've published a paper which explains the mathematics which governs random recombination.

In hiv viruses?

> >
> > Anyone who continues to mock the "feathers from reptiles crowd" is a circus
> > sideshow or carnival barker not worth taking seriously. Perfect fodder
> > alongside Pagano geocentrism for t.o. as we love us some intellectual
> > freaks.

> When the reptiles grow feathers crowd fails to do their job and correctly explain how evolution works, what do you think they deserve?

For once you have a valid point, but I don't think you have
any idea WHY it is valid, just as Hemi has no idea either.

I'd tell you, but at a price: you need to stop doing juvenile
bits of mindless repartee against me, like the one I pointed out to you.
The one against jillery should give you an idea of what I mean,
in case you are too unintelligent to get it the first time around.

> Stupid people like Dinky Dawkins thinks that anyone who doesn't believe in the TOE should be treated with derision.

Says the derisive jerk who keeps calling people who believe in
common descent "the reptiles grow feathers crowd."

Anyone who believes in common descent, including Michael Behe, knows
that the evidence is overwhelming that birds descended from
archosaurian reptiles. There is some controversy, which Harshman's
ideology forces him to dismiss derisively, as to whether they
descended from dinosaurian reptiles. But that is as far as
disagreement between reputable paleontologists [Harshman is
NOT one of them] goes.

> You blithering idiots deserve a little of your own medicine,

You are talking to the choir, you blithering idiot. Everyone here
knows that if multiple mutations (or sites) need to be targeted, use of one
drug can be expected to have only a temporary setback as the
resistant strains fill the void. The part about resistant strains
has been known since the early days of penicillin,
even before the structure of DNA was worked out by Crick,
Watson, and a woman whose research they shamelessly ripped off.

> especially because of the harm you have caused people with drug-resistant microbes,

Note the word "strains". The popular medical literature of the olden
days didn't use the word "mutants", and so you don't seem to realize
that you are just reinventing the wheel.

People of those olden days had no use for a sophomoric jerk telling
them about rmns. They found out by trial and error how to handle
drug resistant strains, because they didn't have the benefit of
modern genetic testing.

> herbicide-resistant weeds, pesticide-resistant insects and less than durable cancer treatments.

Stow the preaching to the choir, matey.


Peter Nyikos
Professor, Department of Math. -- standard disclaimer --

[Alan Kleinman MD PhD]

Pardon me, for not getting your very little joke. The really big joke is the TOE and it is really a bad joke.

>
> > >
> > > Mark Isaak may have tried to crack a joke below, but he is nowhere as
> > > good at humor as Andre. [I've always wondered whether they two Isaaks were
> > > related, but they've rebuffed all my attempts to find out.]
>
> > Do you always waste as much time as you do?
>
> Pathetic comeback from someone who wastes EVERYONE'S time by
> playing Usenet Treadmill Salesman, and by cracking inane jokes
> partly to ward off criticism, but often just to participate
> in a cascade of swapped inane wisecracks.

Peter's version of tit-for-tat. Instead of pretending to be an out of work comedian, why don't you try doing something you actually get paid for?

>
>
> > >
> > > > > > You would need to learn about selection pressure first.  What selection
> > > > > > pressures routinely affect typical city-living pigeons today?  I can
> > > > > > think of seven off the top of my head.  From the way you talk about
> > > > > > selection, shouldn't we expect pigeons to be extinct, at least in
> > > > > > cities?  And yet they thrive.
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > This story from October 2017 was highlighted today by naturalist Chris
> > > > > Packham on a popular daytime TV show here in the UK. (Yes I confess, I'm
> > > > > a Countdown watcher)
> > > > >
> > > > > <http://www.ox.ac.uk/news/2017-10-20-british-birds-adapt-their-beaks-birdfeeders>
> > > > >
> > > > > Here the "selection pressure" is extra food being provided by humans in
> > > > > the UK, but not in Holland, resulting is a genetic change within 40
> > > > > years that has been analysed at the DNA level.
> > > > >
> > > > > Kleinman only sees selection as a negative effect but of course it can
> > > > > be positive too when new opportunities present themselves.
> > >
> > > > Rustentrant you are a dumb cluck. They didn't identify any mutations.
> > >
> > > How do you know the following bit doesn't refer to mutations?
>
> <crickets>

Why didn't they identify the mutations? How do you know they were referring to mutations? If they were, we live in the age of genetic sequencing. They should complete their work instead of publishing their incomplete study.

>
> > > "`We now know that this increase in beak length, and the difference in beak length between birds in Britain and mainland Europe, is down to genes that have evolved by natural selection.'
> > Because they would have identified the mutations. If you can't recognize an example of recombination and natural selection, that is your problem.
> > >
> > > "The team also found that birds with genetic variants for longer beaks were more frequent visitors to the feeders than those birds which did not have that genetic variation."
> > >
> > > Are you really quite sure that this is like that famous speckled
> > > moth case, which favored mutations that had long been in place?
>
> > The reptiles grow feathers crowd is always conflating recombination and natural selection with rmns. The mathematics and physics are different for the two phenomena.
>
> Stop changing the subject, you monomaniac. Answer my question, or
> admit that you were talking off the top of your head, and THEN move on.

Nobody said mutations don't occur. And a mutation which causes a new variant does occur. But grossly over-extrapolating this to the transformation of a reptile into a bird is mathematically irrational nonsense. Mark is trying to extrapolate this notion to new varieties of corn. When he demonstrates that this process can transform corn into wheat, he has an argument. For a mathematician, you have very little sense of proportionality.

>
> You were rather fond of Charles Brenner, but if he were around today,
> he just might treat you the way he treated John Harshman:
>
> Challenged, you change the subject. That's not sensible.
> I'd like to know who you are, what you have done with
> John Harshman, and why you are posting in his name.
> Charles Brenner in:
> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/yM3vszXTTTc/Uh54CtvUBKkJ

I'm not interested in your speculations.

>
>
>
> > >
> > > > Why are you so stupid. Do you think every phenotypic change is due to rmns?
> > >
> > > As long as you are being this humorless, how about identifying
> > > the phenotypic changes that you say were not genetic?
>
> > These are changes in phenotype by recombination.
>
> How do you know?

If you have siblings, you might have a sense of the point I'm making, that is unless you believe that the differences in your siblings are due to mutations.

>
> [I admit, you *are* getting somewhere here, but only with
> baby first steps.]
>
>
> > These phenotypic changes are no different than the breeding of Great Danes and Chihuahuas.
>
> How do you know?

Because phenotypic changes due to rmns take on the order of e9 replications for each step of the change. A single replication with recombination can cause a huge phenotypic change. Are all your siblings the exact same height, the exact same hair color, the exact same face,...? Are you getting a sense of the proportionality yet?

>
>
> > The environmental conditions are selecting for particular phenotypes which mean that the remaining members with the more fit phenotypes are inbreeding re-enforcing those traits.
>
> A plausible alternative to what Rusentraut claimed, but one would think
> you would have EVIDENCE for it at your fingertips to justify your
> insulting put-down of him.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25645658

>
> Where is that evidence? Until you produce some, you are under
> suspicion of bluffing with a Nothing hand. And boy, you sure
> are laying it on thick below:

How about the successful use of combination therapy for the treatment of hiv despite the fact that hiv does recombination? You have a copy of the paper, read it and understand why you can get Darwin's finches or Great Danes and Chihuahuas simply by selective recombination. But instead, you would rather be a hall monitor or out of work comedian.

>
> > >
> > > > You are a blithering idiot if you do. And you are a blithering idiot anyway. Learn the difference between rmns and recombination and natural selection. And learn introductory probability theory rustbrain.
> > >
> > > Learn the meaning of the term "monomaniac", you almost-one-trick pony.
>
>
> And now you finally get your juvenile sense of humor back:
>
> > And you are a zero-trick pony.
>
> Did you really think this childish comeback was clever repartee?

It was a worthy response.

>
> I don't deal in tricks where you are concerned, Alan. I don't need to --
> you are too incompetent to require tricks to show you up.

Sure you do. You think the at least one rule is a trick. Do you still think that mutations are not random independent events? That puts you in the SlowO and Barbie camp, two masters of introductory probability theory. (That's a joke).

>
>
> Remainder deleted, to be replied to later.

Try to be challenging next time.

[*Hemidactylus*]

Alan Kleinman MD PhD <klei...@sti.net> wrote:

When did I ever imply this? And given the ubiquity of lgt you live in the
fantasy world.

>
> And the correct genetic material just magically appears. Why does 3 drug
> therapy work for the treatment of hiv? Doesn't hiv know about lateral
> transfer of genetic material?
>

Your point being? Combo therapy against viral HIV does not reduce the
importance of lgt in bacterial populations and growing threats of
resistance. Why reinvent the wheel when you can borrow such concepts from
elsewhere. And wheels can be implemented in so many novel ways.
Steamrollers and dough rollers do similar things.

>
> I don't disparage recombination. In fact, I've published a paper which
> explains the mathematics which governs random recombination.
>

Good for you. Do you want a pat on the back?

>
>> Anyone who continues to mock the “feathers from reptiles crowd” is a circus
>> sideshow or carnival barker not worth taking seriously. Perfect fodder
>> alongside Pagano geocentrism for t.o. as we love us some intellectual
>> freaks.
> When the reptiles grow feathers crowd fails to do their job and correctly
> explain how evolution works, what do you think they deserve?
>

You are the one with a blinkered view of evolution. If not deliberate
disinformation then at least a good case of self-delusion.

> Stupid people like Dinky Dawkins thinks that anyone who doesn't believe
> in the TOE should be treated with derision. You blithering idiots deserve
> a little of your own medicine, especially because of the harm you have
> caused people with drug-resistant microbes, herbicide-resistant weeds,
> pesticide-resistant insects and less than durable cancer treatments.
>

How is that the fault of anyone who actually knows how evolution works and
by extension how resistance evolves? Medical doctors typically focus on a
single model organism, humans, in their limited biological education and
specialize in very esoteric fields. They lack knowledge of biodiversity and
evolutionary biology. No wonder they overprescribed antibiotics to
similarly ignorant nagging patients in the past.

[Alan Kleinman MD PhD]

That's pretty weak when you have to use the term "irredeemably". Who else uses that term?

Sure they are and these mutations cause different variants. But to try to extrapolate this to reptiles growing wings and feathers and corn turning into wheat makes no mathematical sense. Again, consider the most studied example of evolution, that of hiv to 3 drug therapy. Why doesn't your argument work here? There are specific mathematical reasons why the lateral transfer of genetic material makes no difference in this case. You can't breed birds from reptiles because the appropriate alleles are not in the gene pool and you need rmns to produce those alleles.

>
> Regardless the extant genetic variation itself resulted from previous
> mutations at some point in the evolution of these birds. It didn’t just
> poof into existence unless you believe in miracles. Is that the root cause
> of your perennial freak show here? A belief in supernatural intervention?

The central problem in your argument is how do you get all the mutations necessary to produce feathers into a replicator that doesn't produce feathers. That requires rmns.

You still don't understand that the intensity of selection has no impact on the evolutionary trajectory. I gave a simple example to Mark and I'll repeat it here.
.
Consider the Kishony experiment and to get full resistance to the drug requires mutations A,B,C, and D. Now run the Kishony experiment with only two areas on the plate, a zero concentration region and a low concentration region. Full resistance still requires mutations A,B,C, and D even with the single low-intensity selection region. The evolutionary trajectory is not dependent on the intensity of selection. The mathematics of the evolutionary trajectory is the same whether the intensity of selection is low or high. You have the same binomial probability equations and the same multiplication rule applying to the evolutionary process.

[*Hemidactylus*]

Alan Kleinman MD PhD <klei...@sti.net> wrote:
>

[snip]

>
> Nobody said mutations don't occur. And a mutation which causes a new
> variant does occur. But grossly over-extrapolating this to the
> transformation of a reptile into a bird is mathematically irrational nonsense.
>

“Reptile” is a bit of a misnomer (amniote is better), but you are injecting
a bit of a category error nonetheless. However impacted by evolution, birds
remain a member of their larger group, dinosaurs. It’s not birds from but
birds as. Same with humans as apes. That’s why there are still apes and
monkeys (more inclusive groupings).

> Mark is trying to extrapolate this notion to new varieties of corn. When
> he demonstrates that this process can transform corn into wheat, he has an argument.

You are so stupid you cannot even recognize your stupidity. Humans from
bonobos too right? Even Goldschmidt cried. Oh the inanity.

Wheat and corn are grasses, but neither will become a sandspur.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pooideae

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panicoideae

Why does your argument devolve so quickly into bargain basement
biologically ignorant creationist tripe? Oh yeah. That’s why.

[Alan Kleinman MD PhD]

On Wednesday, April 25, 2018 at 6:55:03 AM UTC-7, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> On Wednesday, April 25, 2018 at 9:05:03 AM UTC-4, Alan Kleinman MD PhD wrote:
> > On Wednesday, April 25, 2018 at 5:35:02 AM UTC-7, *Hemidactylus* wrote:
> > > Reentrant <reen...@invalid.org.uk> wrote:
>
> > > > I post a link to some Oxford University research and you respond with
> > > > insults. You are mentally unstable. Please seek help.
> > > >
> > > > I dare you to show my post and your response to some of your (alleged)
> > > > medical colleagues and see what they say.
>
> As usual, you shamelessly ducked this challenge: you just blathered
> in general about a subset of your medical colleagues.

I've had my claims peer-reviewed and published. What do you want, my emails? I've never met a physician who understands how drug resistance occurs. And this lesson will have to be relearned by oncologists as they start using targeted therapy more.

>
> But now I challenge you to show what you wrote to ANY of your medical
> colleagues -- as though that weren't obvious from Reentrant's words.

Read my publications dumb cluck.

>
>
> > > He's a broken record. He has discounted the importance of lateral gene
> > > transfer in bacterial populations just the same as he seems to be
> > > disparaging genetic recombination in sexually reproducing species. Why the
> > > bother of having sex then?
>
> > The wrong genetic material never gets laterally transferred in the imaginary world of Hemi. And the correct genetic material just magically appears. Why does 3 drug therapy work for the treatment of hiv?
>
> Because it is three mutations [1] that need to be targeted. If it were two,
> then 2 drug therapy would be adequate. If it were 4, then 4 drug therapy
> would be needed, and so on ad infinitum.

All you need to do is use the mutation rate and the number of replications to determine the number of drugs needed to make any evolutionary process by rmns to be of low probability of occurring. If it takes a billion generations of replication of the hiv virus to get the triple beneficial mutation, then you know you have a reasonable probability of your treatment is durable. You do know how to do a math problem, don't you?

>
> [1] Or is it 3 sites, or 2 mutations with 2 sites in one of them?
> Did you ever read the relevant literature to find out?

Each unique selection pressure has its own unique evolutionary trajectory for adaptation. Is it that hard to understand?

>
>
> > Doesn't hiv know about lateral transfer of genetic material?
>
> I know of lateral transfer in prokaryotes, and assorted eukaryotes.
> Is there really lateral transfer between strains of the hiv virus?

hiv does recombination, google the subject.

>
>
> > I don't disparage recombination. In fact, I've published a paper which explains the mathematics which governs random recombination.
>
> In hiv viruses?

Google this term "recombination hiv" and then read my paper on random recombination and find out why recombination has little effect on the rmns process.

>
> > >
> > > Anyone who continues to mock the "feathers from reptiles crowd" is a circus
> > > sideshow or carnival barker not worth taking seriously. Perfect fodder
> > > alongside Pagano geocentrism for t.o. as we love us some intellectual
> > > freaks.
>
> > When the reptiles grow feathers crowd fails to do their job and correctly explain how evolution works, what do you think they deserve?
>
> For once you have a valid point, but I don't think you have
> any idea WHY it is valid, just as Hemi has no idea either.

In case you hadn't noticed, I did the math.

>
> I'd tell you, but at a price: you need to stop doing juvenile
> bits of mindless repartee against me, like the one I pointed out to you.
> The one against jillery should give you an idea of what I mean,
> in case you are too unintelligent to get it the first time around.

This said by the one who takes over thread after thread and does this very thing with every other poster on this forum.

>
>
> > Stupid people like Dinky Dawkins thinks that anyone who doesn't believe in the TOE should be treated with derision.
>
> Says the derisive jerk who keeps calling people who believe in
> common descent "the reptiles grow feathers crowd."

Don't forget, they think that fish turn into mammals. Talk about doubling down on stupidity. It would be a miracle if these nincompoops could come up with a coherent explanation of how rmns works. They might actually help some with a drug-resistant infection or produce a more durable cancer treatment.

>
> Anyone who believes in common descent, including Michael Behe, knows
> that the evidence is overwhelming that birds descended from
> archosaurian reptiles. There is some controversy, which Harshman's
> ideology forces him to dismiss derisively, as to whether they
> descended from dinosaurian reptiles. But that is as far as
> disagreement between reputable paleontologists [Harshman is
> NOT one of them] goes.

Nobody said that mathematicians can also be nincompoops, these are the same ones who want to be a hall monitor.

>
>
> > You blithering idiots deserve a little of your own medicine,
>
> You are talking to the choir, you blithering idiot. Everyone here
> knows that if multiple mutations (or sites) need to be targeted, use of one
> drug can be expected to have only a temporary setback as the
> resistant strains fill the void. The part about resistant strains
> has been known since the early days of penicillin,
> even before the structure of DNA was worked out by Crick,
> Watson, and a woman whose research they shamelessly ripped off.

Everybody knows that?

>
>
> > especially because of the harm you have caused people with drug-resistant microbes,
>
> Note the word "strains". The popular medical literature of the olden
> days didn't use the word "mutants", and so you don't seem to realize
> that you are just reinventing the wheel.
>
> People of those olden days had no use for a sophomoric jerk telling
> them about rmns. They found out by trial and error how to handle
> drug resistant strains, because they didn't have the benefit of
> modern genetic testing.

You obviously missed Edward Tatum's 1958 Nobel laureate lecture.

[Alan Kleinman MD PhD]

Absolutely not, I live in a world with multi-drug resistant microbes, no thanks to biologists.

> >
> > And the correct genetic material just magically appears. Why does 3 drug
> > therapy work for the treatment of hiv? Doesn't hiv know about lateral
> > transfer of genetic material?
> >
> Your point being? Combo therapy against viral HIV does not reduce the
> importance of lgt in bacterial populations and growing threats of
> resistance. Why reinvent the wheel when you can borrow such concepts from
> elsewhere. And wheels can be implemented in so many novel ways.
> Steamrollers and dough rollers do similar things.

lgt does not make resistance genes, it takes rmns to make resistance genes and until that happens, there is nothing beneficial to laterally transfer.

> >
> > I don't disparage recombination. In fact, I've published a paper which
> > explains the mathematics which governs random recombination.
> >
> Good for you. Do you want a pat on the back?

Not from someone who thinks that recombination will turn reptiles into birds.

> >
> >> Anyone who continues to mock the “feathers from reptiles crowd” is a circus
> >> sideshow or carnival barker not worth taking seriously. Perfect fodder
> >> alongside Pagano geocentrism for t.o. as we love us some intellectual
> >> freaks.
> > When the reptiles grow feathers crowd fails to do their job and correctly
> > explain how evolution works, what do you think they deserve?
> >
> You are the one with a blinkered view of evolution. If not deliberate
> disinformation then at least a good case of self-delusion.

So let's hear your learned explanation of how the Kishony and Lenski experiment works and why combination therapy works for the treatment of hiv.

>
> > Stupid people like Dinky Dawkins thinks that anyone who doesn't believe
> > in the TOE should be treated with derision. You blithering idiots deserve
> > a little of your own medicine, especially because of the harm you have
> > caused people with drug-resistant microbes, herbicide-resistant weeds,
> > pesticide-resistant insects and less than durable cancer treatments.
> >
> How is that the fault of anyone who actually knows how evolution works and
> by extension how resistance evolves? Medical doctors typically focus on a
> single model organism, humans, in their limited biological education and
> specialize in very esoteric fields. They lack knowledge of biodiversity and
> evolutionary biology. No wonder they overprescribed antibiotics to
> similarly ignorant nagging patients in the past.

Humans are the environment in which drug resistance evolves and different humans present different environments to the microbes. Do you have any idea how this effects the evolutionary process? I think not.

[Alan Kleinman MD PhD]

On Wednesday, April 25, 2018 at 7:40:03 AM UTC-7, *Hemidactylus* wrote:

> Alan Kleinman MD PhD wrote:
> >
> [snip]
> >
> > Nobody said mutations don't occur. And a mutation which causes a new
> > variant does occur. But grossly over-extrapolating this to the
> > transformation of a reptile into a bird is mathematically irrational nonsense.
> >
> “Reptile” is a bit of a misnomer (amniote is better), but you are injecting
> a bit of a category error nonetheless. However impacted by evolution, birds
> remain a member of their larger group, dinosaurs. It’s not birds from but
> birds as. Same with humans as apes. That’s why there are still apes and
> monkeys (more inclusive groupings).

Do you think this hogwash is science? Do the genetic sequencing and correctly explain the mechanisms of genetic transformation. That's how you do science. Not your stupid storytelling. You might as well be talking about Pegasus.

>
> > Mark is trying to extrapolate this notion to new varieties of corn. When
> > he demonstrates that this process can transform corn into wheat, he has an argument.
>
> You are so stupid you cannot even recognize your stupidity. Humans from
> bonobos too right? Even Goldschmidt cried. Oh the inanity.
>
> Wheat and corn are grasses, but neither will become a sandspur.

But fish become mammals and reptiles grow feathers and wings.

>
> https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pooideae
>
> https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panicoideae
>
> Why does your argument devolve so quickly into bargain basement
> biologically ignorant creationist tripe? Oh yeah. That’s why.

And your point is that corn cannot evolve into wheat but fish can evolve into mammals and reptiles can grow feathers and wings? What limits corn from turning into wheat? Can't we have a little evolutionary Chex mix?

[Mark Isaak]

That's all covered in _On the Origin of Species_ by Charles Darwin. I
would suggest you read it, but since you are incapable of learning,
there is no point. I do recommend the book to others who have actual
interest in the subject. (Pigeons figure prominently.)

--
Mark Isaak eciton (at) curioustaxonomy (dot) net
"I think if we ever reach the point where we think we thoroughly
understand who we are and where we come from, we will have failed."
- Carl Sagan